https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90457 In central excise, mere supply of components, ownership of the brand name, provision of specifications, and purchase of the entire output do not by themselves make the customer the manufacturer. The decisive test is whether the fabricator manufactures goods on its own account as an independent entity or merely acts as a hired hand. On the stated facts, the actual fabrication was undertaken by DIPL as an independent manufacturer, so the appellant was not treated as the manufacturer. The notice and duty demand were also found unsustainable because they were based on that incorrect premise and could not extend beyond the permissible limitation. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:58:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90457 In central excise, mere supply of components, ownership of the brand name, provision of specifications, and purchase of the entire output do not by themselves make the customer the manufacturer. The decisive test is whether the fabricator manufactures goods on its own account as an independent entity or merely acts as a hired hand. On the stated facts, the actual fabrication was undertaken by DIPL as an independent manufacturer, so the appellant was not treated as the manufacturer. The notice and duty demand were also found unsustainable because they were based on that incorrect premise and could not extend beyond the permissible limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90457