Excise manufacturer liability and writ maintainability turned on actual factory control, not mere supply of raw material.

Writ jurisdiction remained available despite an appellate remedy requiring pre-deposit where the petitioner complained of infringement of the fundamental right to carry on trade, so the alternative-remedy objection failed and the petition was maintainable. On excise liability, the person who actually manufactures goods, or the owner or occupier of the factory holding the licence and giving the required notices, is the manufacturer under the excise scheme; a party that merely supplies oilseeds to independent mills and pays crushing charges does not become the manufacturer. The demand notices and detention order were therefore quashed, and recovery of excise duty from the petitioner was restrained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy requiring pre-deposit of the disputed excise duty. (ii) Whether the petitioner, which supplied oilseeds to independent oil mills and paid crushing charges, was the manufacturer liable to excise duty on the oil so produced.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy requiring pre-deposit of the disputed excise duty.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the assertion that the demand and detention orders unlawfully interfered with the petitioner's business and therefore infringed its right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In a bona fide complaint of infringement of a fundamental right, the existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, bar recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected, and the writ petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, which supplied oilseeds to independent oil mills and paid crushing charges, was the manufacturer liable to excise duty on the oil so produced.

Analysis: Excise duty is attracted by the manufacture or production of goods, and the manufacturer is ordinarily the person who actually manufactures the goods. Reading Sections 2(e), 2(f) and 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, together with Rules 43 and 44 of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944, the relevant manufacturer is the owner or occupier of the factory where the goods are made and who holds the licence and gives the required notices. A person who merely supplies raw material to an independent mill and pays crushing charges does not thereby become the manufacturer, especially when the labour is engaged by the mill and not by that person.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not the manufacturer of the oil produced by the other mills and was not liable to pay excise duty on it.

Final Conclusion: The demand notices and detention order were quashed, and recovery of excise duty from the petitioner was restrained.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise law, liability attaches to the person who is the actual manufacturer or licence-holder operating the factory, and a supplier of raw materials who merely gets goods processed by an independent mill on payment of crushing charges is not the manufacturer for excise purposes.

---