Excise duty on manufacture upheld where the petitioner admitted being the manufacturer and removal of goods did not defeat liability.

Excise duty on groundnut oil was attracted on manufacture, and the duty could still be recovered after removal or sale of the goods. The petitioner's own applications and letter described him as the manufacturer and accepted liability, and no material rebutted that admission. The exemption in the relevant appendix applied only to the manufacturer and could not be claimed separately for two mills when the petitioner was found to be the manufacturer. The demand was therefore treated as lawfully raised and upheld against the petitioner as manufacturer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was the manufacturer of the groundnut oil and therefore liable to pay excise duty, and whether the duty demand was without lawful authority after the goods had been removed and sold.

Analysis: The charging provision levied duty on excisable goods produced or manufactured in India, while the rules made the manufacturer liable to pay duty and enabled recovery even after removal of the goods. The petitioner's own applications and letter showed that he described himself as the manufacturer and accepted liability to pay the duty, and no material was produced to displace that admission. The exemption available under the relevant appendix was available only to the manufacturer and could not be claimed multiple times by treating the two mills separately when the petitioner was found to be the real manufacturer. The removal and sale of the oil did not defeat the levy, because excise duty is attracted on manufacture and may be demanded even after the goods have left the premises.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held liable as the manufacturer, and the demand for excise duty was upheld as lawful.

---