Job-work manufacture fixes excise duty on the job worker, not the raw material supplier, on these facts.

In job-work manufacture, the job worker is treated as the manufacturer of the finished goods, and central excise duty attaches on clearance from the job worker's premises. Supply of raw materials and moulds by the appellant did not, by itself, make the appellant the manufacturer of the finished products. The absence of a declaration under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. did not alter the duty position on these facts, so the demand against the appellant could not be sustained and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, as supplier of raw materials and moulds to a job worker, was liable to pay central excise duty on the finished goods, and whether the absence of a declaration under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. altered that liability.

Analysis: The lower authorities had proceeded on the footing that the appellant supplied raw materials and moulds for manufacture of the final products and had not claimed the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. The Tribunal found that the actual manufacture was carried out by the job worker, who converted the raw material into finished goods. On that basis, duty liability attached to clearance from the job worker's premises, and the mere fact that the appellant supplied inputs and moulds did not make it the manufacturer of the finished goods.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to discharge central excise duty as manufacturer of the finished products, and the demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In job-work manufacture, the job worker is the manufacturer of the finished goods, and excise duty liability arises on clearance from the job worker's premises unless a contrary legal basis is established.

---