Actual manufacturer test in excise: brand ownership and subsidiary control alone did not fix duty liability, except under a deeming notification.

Excise liability for footwear turned on who was the actual manufacturer. Mere supply of raw materials, ownership of the brand name, financing, technical assistance, or a subsidiary relationship did not by itself make the appellant the manufacturer where another entity actually fabricated the goods. For a short earlier period, an exemption notification deeming brand-name footwear to be manufactured by the brand owner applied, so duty remained payable only for that period. The limitation plea was rejected in view of the clear non-compliance alleged, but the penalty was substantially moderated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant firm was the manufacturer of footwear produced by its subsidiary for the period from 9-8-1977 to 31-5-1981. (ii) Whether the appellant firm remained liable as manufacturer for the period from 1-8-1977 to 8-8-1977 under the then existing notification. (iii) Whether the demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation and what penalty was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant firm was the manufacturer of footwear produced by its subsidiary for the period from 9-8-1977 to 31-5-1981.

Analysis: The relevant legal test is whether the appellant was the actual fabricator of the goods. Mere supply of raw materials, ownership of the brand name, financing, technical assistance, or the fact that the producing concern was a subsidiary did not make the appellant the manufacturer. The governing law recognized that the raw material supplier or brand-name owner is not, by that fact alone, the manufacturer where the goods are actually fabricated by another entity.

Conclusion: The appellant firm was not the manufacturer for the period from 9-8-1977 to 31-5-1981, and no duty was payable by it for that period.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant firm remained liable as manufacturer for the period from 1-8-1977 to 8-8-1977 under the then existing notification.

Analysis: For the short period before the amendment, the notification contained an explanation deeming footwear affixed with another manufacturer's brand or trade name to be manufactured by or on behalf of such other manufacturer. On that statutory footing, the brand-name owner was treated as the manufacturer for that period.

Conclusion: The appellant firm was liable to duty for the goods cleared during 1-8-1977 to 8-8-1977, and the duty was required to be recomputed only for that period.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for the relevant period was barred by limitation and what penalty was justified.

Analysis: The notice alleged clear non-compliance with excise requirements, and the appellant, being a large-scale concern conversant with excise procedure, could not successfully invoke limitation for the short period for which liability survived. However, in the overall circumstances, the penalty required substantial moderation.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed, but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 500.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded substantially on the main question of duty liability, was remanded only for recomputation of duty for eight days, and the penalty stood reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: The actual manufacturer is the entity that fabricates the excisable goods, and ownership of raw materials, brand name, or subsidiary relationship does not by itself make another person the manufacturer, except where the governing notification expressly deems brand-name goods to be manufactured by the brand owner.

---