<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (3) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84266</link>
    <description>Independent job-work manufacturing does not make the raw-material supplier the manufacturer merely because it supplies inputs or uses its brand name. Manufacturer status requires a special relationship or actual financial control, supervision, or other material control over the job worker; the respondent therefore was not treated as the manufacturer. Manufacture requires emergence of a new and distinct commodity with a separate name, character, and use. Where the article&#039;s identity does not change, the process is not manufacture and cannot justify denying the notification. Notification No. 119/75 consequently remained applicable, and the revenue&#039;s objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:43:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84266</link>
      <description>Independent job-work manufacturing does not make the raw-material supplier the manufacturer merely because it supplies inputs or uses its brand name. Manufacturer status requires a special relationship or actual financial control, supervision, or other material control over the job worker; the respondent therefore was not treated as the manufacturer. Manufacture requires emergence of a new and distinct commodity with a separate name, character, and use. Where the article&#039;s identity does not change, the process is not manufacture and cannot justify denying the notification. Notification No. 119/75 consequently remained applicable, and the revenue&#039;s objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>