Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2014-12-02 (Page 1 of 2 )
www.manupatra.com
containers were excisable goods, that the appellants supplied the metal sheets required for the
manufacture of the containers and that the containers were essential for the packing of the
appellants biscuits. It took the view that if a person got goods manufactured by others under
his direction and control then he would be the manufacturer thereof. Note was taken of the fact
that a fixed rate was paid to the units, that the appellants had a right to reject the containers
and that there was no provision in the work orders that related to the scrap. The four units held
separate licences, but on that account it could not be held that they were the manufacturers
and not the appellants. Though the appellants had not actually hired the workers of these units,
it was reasonable to conclude that the appellants were engaged in the production of excisable
goods, viz., the containers, on their own account.
2. We are in no doubt that the Tribunal misdirected itself. Section 2(f) defines 'manufacture'
which, insofar as it is relevant, reads thus:-Section 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,(i) 'manufacture' includes any process-(i) incidental or ancillary
manufactured product;
to
the
completion
of
2014-12-02 (Page 2 of 2 )
www.manupatra.com