https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1140 The case centered on whether the goods in question were manufactured or assembled by the Respondent, with the Revenue arguing for duty payment on the basis of manufacturing. The Respondent contended that the activities were trading, not manufacturing, supported by evidence and lack of infrastructure for manufacturing. The first Appellate Order was upheld, emphasizing the Revenue's failure to prove manufacturing, leading to the dismissal of their appeal and another appeal against the firm's proprietor. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and burden of proof in determining manufacturing activity. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1140 The case centered on whether the goods in question were manufactured or assembled by the Respondent, with the Revenue arguing for duty payment on the basis of manufacturing. The Respondent contended that the activities were trading, not manufacturing, supported by evidence and lack of infrastructure for manufacturing. The first Appellate Order was upheld, emphasizing the Revenue's failure to prove manufacturing, leading to the dismissal of their appeal and another appeal against the firm's proprietor. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and burden of proof in determining manufacturing activity. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1140