Trade name affixation alone does not make a buyer the manufacturer for excise duty liability.

Goods manufactured by independent units do not become the buyer's goods for duty purposes merely because the buyer's trade name is affixed on them. The applicable notification was invoked on the theory that brand-name marking made the appellants the manufacturers, but the governing principle rejected that approach and treated manufacture by an independent producer as insufficient, by itself, to fasten manufacturer status on the buyer. On that footing, the duty demand could not stand, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants could be treated as manufacturers of the goods merely because the goods, made by independent manufacturers, bore the trade name "Bengal" and were covered by Notification No. 305/77 dated 5-11-1977.

Analysis: The admitted position was that the impugned goods were manufactured by independent units, which affixed the trade name and supplied the goods to the appellants. The applicable notification was invoked on the footing that such brand-name affixation made the appellants the manufacturers. The governing principle applied was that manufacture by an independent producer does not, by itself, convert the buyer into the manufacturer merely because the buyer's trade name is affixed on the goods.

Conclusion: The appellants were not liable to be treated as manufacturers on the basis of mere affixation of the trade name, and the demand confirmed on that footing could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands and the impugned order were set aside and the appeals were allowed in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere affixation of a trade name on goods manufactured by independent manufacturers does not, without more, render the buyer the manufacturer for duty liability.

---