https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=704 In a job-work arrangement, manufacture is attributed to the entity actually processing the goods, not to a trader who merely places orders, affixes a brand name, issues warranties, or receives invoices. On the facts stated, the independent job workers fabricated the lighting tower structures and supplied the electrical components, so the appellants were not treated as manufacturers for central excise purposes. The document also states that towers assembled and installed at site, where the finished structure is embedded to earth or otherwise becomes immovable property, are not excisable goods. On that basis, the stated duty demand and penalties could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=704 In a job-work arrangement, manufacture is attributed to the entity actually processing the goods, not to a trader who merely places orders, affixes a brand name, issues warranties, or receives invoices. On the facts stated, the independent job workers fabricated the lighting tower structures and supplied the electrical components, so the appellants were not treated as manufacturers for central excise purposes. The document also states that towers assembled and installed at site, where the finished structure is embedded to earth or otherwise becomes immovable property, are not excisable goods. On that basis, the stated duty demand and penalties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=704