https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336082 The Tribunal determined that the third party, SPPL, was the manufacturer under the Central Excise Act, absolving the appellant of liability for duty payment. The Loan License Agreement was deemed irrelevant, focusing instead on the actual manufacturing process and responsibilities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Emphasizing the distinction between the two statutes, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's precedent to rule in favor of the appellant and associated individuals, highlighting the necessity of evidence in determining liability under different statutes. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336082 The Tribunal determined that the third party, SPPL, was the manufacturer under the Central Excise Act, absolving the appellant of liability for duty payment. The Loan License Agreement was deemed irrelevant, focusing instead on the actual manufacturing process and responsibilities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Emphasizing the distinction between the two statutes, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's precedent to rule in favor of the appellant and associated individuals, highlighting the necessity of evidence in determining liability under different statutes. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336082