Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
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 excise duty on goods manufactured by the contract manufacturer on job-work basis was recoverable from the appellant, who supplied raw materials and tools but did not itself undertake the manufacturing activity.
Analysis: The manufacturing activity was carried out by the contract manufacturer at its own premises with its own labour, machinery and resources, while the appellant merely supplied inputs and certain tools. The agreement described the parties as independent contractors, showing that the relationship was not one of agent and principal. Under the scheme of central excise, duty attaches to the person who actually undertakes manufacture, and ownership of the goods is not decisive. The relied upon notifications did not shift the duty liability to the supplier of raw materials in the absence of manufacture by that supplier. The precedents applied by the Tribunal consistently held that, in a genuine job-work arrangement, the job worker is the manufacturer and the duty liability remains on the job worker unless a valid statutory mechanism transfers that liability.
Conclusion: Excise duty was not recoverable from the appellant; the contract manufacturer was liable, and the demand against the appellant was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: In a bona fide job-work arrangement, central excise duty is payable by the person who actually manufactures the goods, and mere supply of raw materials or ownership of the goods does not make the principal manufacturer liable.