https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355964 Where goods bearing the Tupperware brand were manufactured through job workers, the principal manufacturer could assume central excise duty liability only after filing the required job-work undertaking with the jurisdictional authorities. The text notes that the undertaking was filed only from 01.03.2011, and duty for the period thereafter had already been discharged. For the earlier period, liability could not be shifted to the appellant; it had to be fastened on the actual manufacturer, namely the job worker. Accordingly, the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2011 was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355964 Where goods bearing the Tupperware brand were manufactured through job workers, the principal manufacturer could assume central excise duty liability only after filing the required job-work undertaking with the jurisdictional authorities. The text notes that the undertaking was filed only from 01.03.2011, and duty for the period thereafter had already been discharged. For the earlier period, liability could not be shifted to the appellant; it had to be fastened on the actual manufacturer, namely the job worker. Accordingly, the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2011 was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355964