https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358933 Brand embossing or engraving by itself did not amount to manufacture, and the remaining heat treatment, shot blasting and plating were done by independent job workers. On that legal position, any excisable manufacture, if undertaken at all, was attributable to the job workers as the actual manufacturers of the intermediate goods, not to the principal assessees who merely carried out branding or later packing-related activity. The duty demand against the assessees was therefore unsustainable despite their claim under Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., and the common demand was set aside. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358933 Brand embossing or engraving by itself did not amount to manufacture, and the remaining heat treatment, shot blasting and plating were done by independent job workers. On that legal position, any excisable manufacture, if undertaken at all, was attributable to the job workers as the actual manufacturers of the intermediate goods, not to the principal assessees who merely carried out branding or later packing-related activity. The duty demand against the assessees was therefore unsustainable despite their claim under Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., and the common demand was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358933