https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81199 Cutting fabric to size and carrying out stitching, hemming, brand affixation and packing constituted manufacturing activity by the respondents, not mere hired labour for the raw material supplier. The record did not show that they were a dummy or puppet unit under the supplier's control or supervision, and the supplier's sending of cut fabric, without more, was insufficient to treat the supplier as the manufacturer. As the subsequent processes produced made-up articles and the evidence did not support the hired-labour theory, the respondents were held to be manufacturers in their own right and entitled to Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:40:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81199 Cutting fabric to size and carrying out stitching, hemming, brand affixation and packing constituted manufacturing activity by the respondents, not mere hired labour for the raw material supplier. The record did not show that they were a dummy or puppet unit under the supplier's control or supervision, and the supplier's sending of cut fabric, without more, was insufficient to treat the supplier as the manufacturer. As the subsequent processes produced made-up articles and the evidence did not support the hired-labour theory, the respondents were held to be manufacturers in their own right and entitled to Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81199