Brand name ownership alone does not make a trader the manufacturer for central excise liability when production is done independently.

Ownership of a brand name, by itself, does not make the brand owner the manufacturer for central excise purposes where the goods are produced by an independent unit. On the facts, there was no evidence that the brand owner supplied raw materials, provided labour, gave technical guidance, or undertook further processing, so there was no participation in manufacture in law. The result was that the brand owner could not be fastened with central excise duty or penalty, and the excise liability was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the owner of the brand name could be treated as the manufacturer of goods actually manufactured by another person and made liable to central excise duty and penalty.

Analysis: The dispute concerned excisable typewriter ribbons manufactured by an independent unit and cleared under the appellant's brand name. The record did not show that the appellant supplied raw materials, provided labour, gave technical guidance, or undertook further processing so as to constitute manufacture in law. The legal position applied was that mere ownership of the brand name, without participation in the manufacturing process, does not make the brand name owner the manufacturer for central excise purposes.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be treated as the manufacturer, and the duty and penalty demands were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned excise liability and penalty were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who merely lends or owns a brand name is not the manufacturer of goods made by another independent manufacturer unless the facts show actual participation in manufacture.

---