Manufacture versus fabrication under excise law must be decided on evidence, so pre-trial discharge was refused.

Whether the accused were manufacturers or merely fabricators under the Central Excise Act turned on disputed facts and evidentiary evaluation. The court held that the question whether the process amounted to manufacture, including whether manufactured goods came into existence, could not be conclusively decided at the discharge stage. Because the issue required trial evidence and cross-examination of the departmental witness, discharge was inappropriate before trial. The prosecution was therefore allowed to proceed, and the manufacturing controversy was left for determination on evidence at trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the discharge petition seeking termination of prosecution on the ground that the accused were not "manufacturers" under the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be allowed at the pre-trial stage.

Analysis: The complaint alleged offences under the central excise provisions and the discharge application was moved after the complainant had examined a witness and marked documents. The core defence was that the accused were fabricators and not manufacturers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The question whether the process undertaken by the accused resulted in manufacture was treated as depending on evidence and on the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, including whether manufactured goods came into existence. The disputed factual position could be tested only through trial, including cross-examination of the departmental witness, and the discharge stage was found inappropriate for finally deciding the issue.

Conclusion: The discharge petition was rightly dismissed and the challenge to that order failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was permitted to proceed, with the controversy as to whether the accused were manufacturers or fabricators left to be decided on evidence at trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the determination of manufacture under the central excise law depends on disputed facts and evidentiary evaluation, discharge cannot be granted at the pre-trial stage and the issue must be left for trial.

---