Principal-to-principal manufacturing contracts place duty liability on the contractor, not the principal, for PSC pools.

Where PSC pools are manufactured by an independent contractor under a principal-to-principal contract, the contractor is treated as the real manufacturer and duty cannot be fastened on the principal on that basis. The text applies earlier Tribunal orders in identical matters and treats the contractual and factual position as establishing that the respondent was not the manufacturer for the disputed duty demand. As a result, the Revenue's appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contractor, and not the respondent, was the real manufacturer of PSC pools under the contract, and whether the Revenue could recover duty from the respondent on that basis.

Analysis: The contract and the earlier orders were found to show that the work was undertaken by independent contractors on a principal to principal basis. The factual position was treated as covered by the earlier Tribunal orders in identical matters, where the contractor was held to be the real manufacturer and the duty liability was held to lie accordingly.

Conclusion: The respondent was not the manufacturer for the purpose of the disputed duty demand, and the Revenue appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are manufactured by an independent contractor under a principal to principal contract, the contractor is the real manufacturer and the principal cannot be fastened with the duty demand on that basis.

---