Manufacture under excise law extends to re-rolling activity, and contractual arrangements do not avoid manufacturer liability.

A person who undertakes re-rolling of duty-free rails into M.S. rounds by a process amounting to manufacture falls within the inclusive statutory definition of manufacturer and is liable to excise duty on the finished goods. The contractual arrangement allocating responsibility between the parties does not displace the statutory incidence of liability where the person is engaged in production on his own account. On that reasoning, the demand for excise duty was sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who re-rolled duty-free rails into M.S. rounds on behalf of another party, fell within the statutory definition of manufacturer and was liable to excise duty on the finished goods.

Analysis: The inclusive definition of manufacture under the Act was held wide enough to cover not only a person employing hired labour but also a person who engages in the production or manufacture of excisable goods on his own account. The petitioner was engaged in the production of M.S. rounds, and the contractual arrangement with the supplier of the rails did not alter the statutory incidence of liability.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held to be within the definition of manufacturer and liable to excise duty; the challenge to the demand failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed and the excise demands were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who undertakes production of excisable goods by a process amounting to manufacture falls within the statutory definition of manufacturer and is liable to excise duty, irrespective of the contractual allocation of responsibility between the parties.

---