https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82003 Ownership of a brand name, by itself, does not make the brand owner the manufacturer for central excise purposes where the goods are produced by an independent unit. On the facts, there was no evidence that the brand owner supplied raw materials, provided labour, gave technical guidance, or undertook further processing, so there was no participation in manufacture in law. The result was that the brand owner could not be fastened with central excise duty or penalty, and the excise liability was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:55:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82003 Ownership of a brand name, by itself, does not make the brand owner the manufacturer for central excise purposes where the goods are produced by an independent unit. On the facts, there was no evidence that the brand owner supplied raw materials, provided labour, gave technical guidance, or undertook further processing, so there was no participation in manufacture in law. The result was that the brand owner could not be fastened with central excise duty or penalty, and the excise liability was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82003