Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants were the actual manufacturers of the slides and, if so, whether the benefit of Notification No. 77/83 was available to them.
Analysis: The appellants carried on printing activity on their own plant and machinery and also undertook similar work for other customers. The agreement with the raw material supplier provided for manufacture to specification, supply of certain materials and a right of rejection, but it also expressly stated that the relationship was principal to principal. Mere supply of raw materials, specifications, inspection rights, or supply of some equipment did not establish that the supplier controlled the day-to-day manufacturing process or that the processor was a hired labourer. Notification No. 305/77 could apply only if the supplier was the actual manufacturer getting goods made on its account, which was not the factual position here.
Conclusion: The appellants were the actual manufacturers, the supplier was not the manufacturer, and the denial of exemption under Notification No. 77/83 was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the processor is an independent legal entity operating on a principal-to-principal basis, manufacture to the buyer's specifications alone does not make the raw material supplier the actual manufacturer.