https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72279 Mere supply of raw material to another unit for conversion on rolling charges did not, by itself, make the supplier the manufacturer for central excise purposes. The statutory definition of manufacturer under Section 2(f)(iv) was held inapplicable where the actual production was carried out by an independent concern on arm's-length terms, supported by account payee payments, and there was no material showing direction, control, or a dummy arrangement. On that footing, liability to central excise duty and penalty under Rule 173-Q did not arise against the supplier. en-us Wed, 28 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 11:24:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72279 Mere supply of raw material to another unit for conversion on rolling charges did not, by itself, make the supplier the manufacturer for central excise purposes. The statutory definition of manufacturer under Section 2(f)(iv) was held inapplicable where the actual production was carried out by an independent concern on arm's-length terms, supported by account payee payments, and there was no material showing direction, control, or a dummy arrangement. On that footing, liability to central excise duty and penalty under Rule 173-Q did not arise against the supplier. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72279