https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355132 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the job-worker, who carried out the manufacturing activity, should be considered the manufacturer under the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court precedent established that quality control by the job-worker does not make the appellant the manufacturer. As the job-worker had paid excise duty and was entitled to claim CENVAT credit, the appellant was not liable for excise duty. The impugned order denying CENVAT credit to the job-worker was set aside, and both appeals were allowed. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:30:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355132 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the job-worker, who carried out the manufacturing activity, should be considered the manufacturer under the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court precedent established that quality control by the job-worker does not make the appellant the manufacturer. As the job-worker had paid excise duty and was entitled to claim CENVAT credit, the appellant was not liable for excise duty. The impugned order denying CENVAT credit to the job-worker was set aside, and both appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355132