https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73353 A sham intermediary arrangement used to disguise the real manufacturer was disregarded, as the appellants supplied materials, used their own brand, and controlled the chain of dealings; they were therefore treated as the manufacturers and the claim of independent principal-to-principal transactions was rejected. The limitation objection also failed because the demand arose from a concealed and fraudulent device to evade excise duty, so it was sustained under Rule 9(2). The goods were classified as man-cooler fans, not industrial fans, since they were large-air-displacement cooling fans for workers rather than merely fans used in factory premises. The excise demand and departmental orders were upheld. en-us Thu, 06 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 13:01:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73353 A sham intermediary arrangement used to disguise the real manufacturer was disregarded, as the appellants supplied materials, used their own brand, and controlled the chain of dealings; they were therefore treated as the manufacturers and the claim of independent principal-to-principal transactions was rejected. The limitation objection also failed because the demand arose from a concealed and fraudulent device to evade excise duty, so it was sustained under Rule 9(2). The goods were classified as man-cooler fans, not industrial fans, since they were large-air-displacement cooling fans for workers rather than merely fans used in factory premises. The excise demand and departmental orders were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73353