Principal to principal job-work and independent processing determine carton manufacture, not mere printing on paperboard.

Printed paperboard supplied to independent traders and job workers did not make the appellant the manufacturer of cartons where the record showed no financial flow-back, control, or other evidence that the trading units were dummies or that the scoring and laminating units were hired labour. The downstream units operated on a principal to principal basis, and the decisive processing that brought cartons into existence was carried out by those independent job workers. Printed board remained classifiable as printed board, while cartons were distinct packaging goods; mere printing on paperboard did not shift manufacturing liability to the supplier. On that footing, the demand and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to central excise duty on printed cartons on the footing that the trading units and scoring/lamination units were dummy or hired-labour arrangements, or whether the appellant had only carried out printing on paperboard while the cartons came into existence in the hands of independent job workers acting on a principal to principal basis.

Analysis: The record did not establish financial flow-back, control, or other material showing that the trading units were mere dummies or that the scoring and laminating units were hired labour of the appellant. The evidence showed independent existence of the traders and the job workers, with separate business activity and dealings on principal to principal basis. The printed paperboard remained classifiable as printed board under chapter sub-heading 4811.90, while cartons as packaging goods fall under chapter sub-heading 4819.12. The decisive process bringing into existence the carton was scoring and allied processing undertaken by the independent job workers, not the appellant's printing activity. The Board's circular and the cited principle that a job worker acting independently is the actual manufacturer supported this position.

Conclusion: The appellant was not the manufacturer of printed cartons and was not liable for duty on the impugned clearances; the demand and penalty were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where raw material recipients and downstream processors act independently on a principal to principal basis without financial flow-back or control, the downstream job workers are the manufacturers of the finished excisable goods, and mere printing on paperboard does not make the supplier of printed board liable as the manufacturer of cartons.

---