https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1985 Upgrading bought-out computer systems to customer specifications by adding components and affixing a brand name was held not to amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the record showed only trading and upgrading activity and no deeming provision or reliable correlation of components was established. Duty could not be recovered from a company on the basis of a notice not issued to the firm, as liability cannot be fastened on a different legal entity without notice consistently with natural justice. Once the substantive demand failed, the connected penalties on the company and its directors also could not survive. en-us Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1985 Upgrading bought-out computer systems to customer specifications by adding components and affixing a brand name was held not to amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the record showed only trading and upgrading activity and no deeming provision or reliable correlation of components was established. Duty could not be recovered from a company on the basis of a notice not issued to the firm, as liability cannot be fastened on a different legal entity without notice consistently with natural justice. Once the substantive demand failed, the connected penalties on the company and its directors also could not survive. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1985