https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92402 An outside contractor supplied the crane parts and assembled the overhead crane unloader in the appellants' factory, but there was no evidence that the contractor acted as the appellants' hired labourer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the appellants were not treated as the manufacturer of the crane unloader and were not liable to pay central excise duty. The question whether the crane was movable or immovable property was left undecided as unnecessary in view of that finding. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:27:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92402 An outside contractor supplied the crane parts and assembled the overhead crane unloader in the appellants' factory, but there was no evidence that the contractor acted as the appellants' hired labourer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the appellants were not treated as the manufacturer of the crane unloader and were not liable to pay central excise duty. The question whether the crane was movable or immovable property was left undecided as unnecessary in view of that finding. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92402