https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355686 In a job work arrangement, central excise duty attaches to the actual manufacturer who carries out the fabrication, not to the principal supplier of raw material merely because it owns the goods. Applying the Larger Bench ratio, the appellant could not be fastened with duty where the manufacturing activity was admittedly undertaken by the job worker. As the notice was not issued to the job worker, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable, and the penalties based on that demand also failed. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:42:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355686 In a job work arrangement, central excise duty attaches to the actual manufacturer who carries out the fabrication, not to the principal supplier of raw material merely because it owns the goods. Applying the Larger Bench ratio, the appellant could not be fastened with duty where the manufacturing activity was admittedly undertaken by the job worker. As the notice was not issued to the job worker, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable, and the penalties based on that demand also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355686