https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106059 The dispute concerned whether furniture items were manufactured by the appellants or by independent contractors, because that determined who was liable to duty. The Tribunal required examination of the sub-contract agreements to decide whether the arrangement was genuinely on a principal-to-principal basis and therefore who answered as manufacturer. It also required reconsideration of whether furniture fixed at site had become immovable property or remained excisable goods, by assessing the nature of attachment and removability without substantial damage. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, with limitation, assessable value and Modvat credit also to be examined if duty was found payable. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:04:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106059 The dispute concerned whether furniture items were manufactured by the appellants or by independent contractors, because that determined who was liable to duty. The Tribunal required examination of the sub-contract agreements to decide whether the arrangement was genuinely on a principal-to-principal basis and therefore who answered as manufacturer. It also required reconsideration of whether furniture fixed at site had become immovable property or remained excisable goods, by assessing the nature of attachment and removability without substantial damage. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, with limitation, assessable value and Modvat credit also to be examined if duty was found payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106059