Job-work manufacture and immovable site-installed towers are not excisable; trader's branding and ordering do not make it the manufacturer.

In a job-work arrangement, manufacture is attributed to the entity actually processing the goods, not to a trader who merely places orders, affixes a brand name, issues warranties, or receives invoices. On the facts stated, the independent job workers fabricated the lighting tower structures and supplied the electrical components, so the appellants were not treated as manufacturers for central excise purposes. The document also states that towers assembled and installed at site, where the finished structure is embedded to earth or otherwise becomes immovable property, are not excisable goods. On that basis, the stated duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants could be treated as manufacturers of lighting towers for central excise purposes, and whether the towers assembled and installed at site were excisable goods.

Analysis: The trading concern placed orders on independent manufacturers, who fabricated the tower structures and supplied them with the electrical components. The record showed that the job workers were independent manufacturers, and the fact that the appellants arranged orders, affixed their brand name, issued warranties, or received invoices did not by itself make them the manufacturers. The settled principle was that manufacture in a job-work arrangement is attributed to the entity actually processing the goods, and not to the trader who merely places the order or specifies the product. The Tribunal also applied the settled law on site-assembled structures, holding that goods embedded to earth or otherwise acquiring the character of immovable property after installation are not exigible to central excise duty.

Conclusion: The appellants were not liable to be treated as manufacturers of the lighting towers, and the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.

---