Manufacture by billing concern rejected where records showed factory activity, manufacturer invoices, and banked payments.

Contemporaneous records supported a finding that the appellant manufactured the impugned goods and cleared them as a manufacturer through NCCF to a defence establishment. The authorities relied on statements on record, the existence of manufacturing activity at the relevant time, bills raised in the appellant's name as manufacturer, and receipt of payment through banking channels. The later plea that the appellant was only a billing concern and not the manufacturer was rejected because it was inconsistent with the surrounding material. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was engaged in manufacture of the impugned goods and liable to central excise duty on clearances made to NCCF as a manufacturer.

Analysis: The record showed that the goods were supplied to the defence establishment through NCCF, and the statements on record indicated that the factory had manufacturing activity at the relevant time. The appellant raised bills as a manufacturer and received payment through banking channels. The subsequent plea that the appellant was only a billing concern and not the manufacturer was not accepted in view of the contemporaneous material indicating manufacturing facilities and supply as manufacturer.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have manufactured and supplied the goods as a manufacturer, and the duty demand and penalty were sustained.

---