Manufacturer test and extended limitation fail where evidence is inconclusive and no deliberate suppression is proved.

The definition of "manufacturer" under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 is descriptive and does not require physical production alone; where two reasonable inferences are possible on who manufactured excisable goods, the inference favourable to the assessee must prevail. On the admitted facts, the boilers belonged to the neighbouring unit, were directly connected to its factory, and the evidence did not conclusively establish that the appellant itself manufactured the steam, so the appellant was not proved to be the real manufacturer. The extended limitation period also required proof of deliberate suppression or fraud; since steam production was disclosed in the classification list and no wilful concealment was shown, extended limitation was not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant or the neighbouring unit was the real manufacturer of the steam produced from the boilers installed in the appellant's premises; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression of facts or fraud.

Issue (i): whether the appellant or the neighbouring unit was the real manufacturer of the steam produced from the boilers installed in the appellant's premises.

Analysis: The definition of manufacturer under Section 2F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 is descriptive and does not require that the person must himself physically produce the goods alone. On the admitted facts, the boilers belonged to the neighbouring unit and were connected directly to its factory, and the appellant had no commercial stake or benefit in the steam production. The surrounding circumstances, including absence of rent and delayed debit notes, only permitted an inference that the appellant may have assisted the other unit in production. Where two inferences are possible, the one favourable to the assessee must be accepted, and the evidence did not conclusively establish that the appellant itself manufactured the steam.

Conclusion: The appellant was not proved to be the real manufacturer of the steam; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the basis of alleged suppression of facts or fraud.

Analysis: The neighbouring unit had disclosed steam production for captive consumption in its classification list, and the departmental authorities were expected to verify the factual position before approval. The appellant's belief that the other unit was the manufacturer was found to be bona fide, and the record did not show deliberate concealment, wilful suppression, or fraud. In these circumstances, the larger limitation period could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: When the evidence supports more than one reasonable inference as to the manufacturer of excisable goods, the inference favourable to the assessee must be adopted, and extended limitation cannot be invoked without proof of deliberate suppression or fraud.

---