https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195549 Interpretation of the statutory term "manufacturer" under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a referable question of law because the dispute turned on whether the appellant could be denied refund after authorising another concern to manufacture on its behalf under Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the controversy depended on construction of the definition in Section 2(f), the Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer the formulated question of law. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Nov 2017 15:37:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195549 Interpretation of the statutory term "manufacturer" under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a referable question of law because the dispute turned on whether the appellant could be denied refund after authorising another concern to manufacture on its behalf under Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57F(13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the controversy depended on construction of the definition in Section 2(f), the Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer the formulated question of law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195549