Excise manufacturer identity controls special-procedure relief; unauthorised powerloom production meant duty liability remained applicable.

For excise purposes, the person who actually manufactures the goods is treated as the manufacturer, even if production is carried on under leave-and-licence arrangements and AR 6 forms are signed only as agent of alleged owners. The special procedure under Rules 96I, 96J and 96K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was available only to a manufacturer who had applied for and obtained the required licence and lawfully cleared the goods; because the petitioner had not done so, exemption from Rule 9 was unavailable. On that basis, the Collector was entitled to invoke Rule 96MMMM and apply the notification to determine duty liability at the enhanced rate, and the duty demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who manufactured cotton fabrics on powerlooms without the powerlooms being registered in his name and without a licence in his name, could claim the benefit of the special procedure under Rules 96I, 96J and 96K of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and avoid liability to duty under Rule 9; and whether the Collector was justified in levying duty at the enhanced rate under Notification No. 41/65 dated 28.2.1965 by invoking Rule 96MMMM of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The benefit of the special procedure was available only to the actual manufacturer who had applied for and obtained the requisite licence and had lawfully cleared the goods under Rules 96I, 96J and 96K. The AR 6 forms were signed only as agent of the alleged owners, but the owners were not the manufacturers; the petitioner alone controlled production, purchased inputs, manufactured the fabrics and disposed of the goods. Since the petitioner had not applied for or obtained permission under the special procedure, he could not claim exemption from Rule 9. In such circumstances, the Collector was entitled to treat the case as one of failure to avail the special procedure and to invoke Rule 96MMMM to apply the notification for determination of duty liability. The petitioner's reliance on the leave and licence arrangements did not assist him because those arrangements did not alter the identity of the real manufacturer for excise purposes.

Conclusion: The challenge to the levy of enhanced duty failed. The petitioner was held liable to duty and the Collector's determination was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the duty demand calculated at the enhanced rate remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise purposes, the person who actually manufactures the goods is the manufacturer, and where such person has not lawfully availed the prescribed special procedure and licence regime, exemption from Rule 9 is unavailable and the authority may determine duty by applying the notification through Rule 96MMMM.

---