https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116602 A professional who only designed and supervised the making of office furniture was not the real manufacturer for central excise purposes, because the company supplied the materials, labour and payment and retained ownership of the furniture. The article states that manufacture under excise law requires the person to be the actual producer of the goods, and that a mere design-and-supervision role does not create manufacturer liability. Accordingly, the duty demand could not be fastened on the architect, and the related confiscation and connected proceedings could not stand. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:37:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116602 A professional who only designed and supervised the making of office furniture was not the real manufacturer for central excise purposes, because the company supplied the materials, labour and payment and retained ownership of the furniture. The article states that manufacture under excise law requires the person to be the actual producer of the goods, and that a mere design-and-supervision role does not create manufacturer liability. Accordingly, the duty demand could not be fastened on the architect, and the related confiscation and connected proceedings could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116602