Broad excise manufacturer definition upheld where goods were arranged for manufacture through others and sale on the petitioners' account.

Writ relief was declined where an appellate remedy existed but the challenge was pursued with inordinate delay, and the record showed no prompt prosecution of the dispute. The complaint of breach of natural justice also failed because the material relied on by the officers had been put to the petitioners at personal hearings, their representatives were allowed to explain the entries and transactions, and no concrete prejudice or denial of hearing was shown. On liability, the expression "manufacturer" under excise law was treated as broad and inclusive, extending beyond the owner of the factory to a person who arranges manufacture and sale through others on his own account; excise duty was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedy and delay. (ii) Whether the assessment proceedings violated the rules of natural justice. (iii) Whether the petitioners were liable to excise duty as manufacturers under the statute.

Issue (i): Whether the petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of alternative remedy and delay.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself bar writ relief, but the petition suffered from inordinate delay. The demand had been under challenge for a long period, the petitioners had knowledge of the departmental stand, and they had not pursued the remedy with promptness.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment proceedings violated the rules of natural justice.

Analysis: The material relied on by the officers was shown to have been put to the petitioners at personal hearings, their representatives were given opportunity to explain the entries and transactions, and the record showed that they were not taken by surprise. The absence of specific prejudice or a concrete denial of hearing negatived the complaint of procedural unfairness.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners were liable to excise duty as manufacturers under the statute.

Analysis: Excise duty under Section 3 attaches to excisable goods produced or manufactured in India, and the statutory definition of manufacturer is inclusive and broad. It is not confined to the owner of the factory. A person who gets goods manufactured through hired labour or on his own account for sale can fall within the definition, and the facts found showed that the petitioners effectively arranged the manufacture and sale of the fabrics.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the excise demand failed on delay, on the alleged breach of natural justice, and on the merits of liability, so the levy was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of excise, the expression "manufacturer" is of wide and inclusive amplitude and may cover a person who gets goods manufactured through others for sale on his own account; excise duty is attracted to the goods produced or manufactured, not merely to the formal owner of the factory.

---