Contract manufacturing for excise treats the actual maker as manufacturer, with CENVAT credit allowed subject to verification.

In a contract manufacturing arrangement for PSC poles, the party actually undertaking manufacture under the contract was treated as the manufacturer for excise purposes, so duty and interest were upheld. CENVAT credit on cement and steel supplied free of cost was held admissible in principle because duty was payable on the finished goods; the objection that invoices stood in the Electricity Board's name was treated as a curable defect, subject to endorsement and verification under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The penalty was waived because the liability was disputed between the contractor and the Electricity Board and the circumstances justified a lenient approach.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contractors engaged to manufacture PSC poles for the Electricity Board were to be treated as the manufacturers. (ii) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on cement and steel supplied free of cost by the Electricity Board for use in manufacture. (iii) Whether the penalty imposed on the appellants was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the contractors engaged to manufacture PSC poles for the Electricity Board were to be treated as the manufacturers.

Analysis: The contract terms showed that the appellants manufactured the PSC poles at the contracted price, while also bearing water charges, electricity charges, rent for the casting bed, tools and plant, and rent for use of land. In such contractual arrangements, the person actually undertaking manufacture under the contract is treated as the manufacturer.

Conclusion: The appellants were held to be the manufacturers, and the demand of duty and interest was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on cement and steel supplied free of cost by the Electricity Board for use in manufacture.

Analysis: Since duty was held payable on the PSC poles manufactured using cement and steel, the appellants were in principle entitled to credit of the duty paid on such inputs. The objection regarding invoices standing in the name of the Electricity Board was treated as a curable defect, subject to endorsement and verification under the CENVAT Credit Rules.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit was allowed in principle and the matter was remanded to the original authority for verification and grant of credit.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed on the appellants was warranted.

Analysis: The liability itself was under dispute between the contractors and the Electricity Board, and the circumstances justified a lenient approach.

Conclusion: The penalty was waived.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of CENVAT credit verification and was otherwise rejected on the question of liability, with penalty relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a contract manufacturing arrangement, the party that actually manufactures the goods under the contractual terms is the manufacturer for excise purposes, and credit on inputs may be allowed subject to compliance and verification.

---