https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413332 Whether the accused were manufacturers or merely fabricators under the Central Excise Act turned on disputed facts and evidentiary evaluation. The court held that the question whether the process amounted to manufacture, including whether manufactured goods came into existence, could not be conclusively decided at the discharge stage. Because the issue required trial evidence and cross-examination of the departmental witness, discharge was inappropriate before trial. The prosecution was therefore allowed to proceed, and the manufacturing controversy was left for determination on evidence at trial. en-us Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Oct 2021 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413332 Whether the accused were manufacturers or merely fabricators under the Central Excise Act turned on disputed facts and evidentiary evaluation. The court held that the question whether the process amounted to manufacture, including whether manufactured goods came into existence, could not be conclusively decided at the discharge stage. Because the issue required trial evidence and cross-examination of the departmental witness, discharge was inappropriate before trial. The prosecution was therefore allowed to proceed, and the manufacturing controversy was left for determination on evidence at trial. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413332