https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276885 Under Central Excise law, manufacture was determined by whether a new and distinct commercial product emerged with a different name, character or use; mere branding, polishing or making goods marketable was insufficient. On the facts, the assessee supplied or financed essential parts, controlled assembly through artisans or units, paid labour on a piece-rate basis, and retained ownership throughout the process. The finishing work at the assessee's premises was only the last stage of an integrated process by which locks came into existence. The activity was therefore manufacturing in substance, and the assessee was treated as a manufacturer of locks; the Tribunal's contrary view was held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:34:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276885 Under Central Excise law, manufacture was determined by whether a new and distinct commercial product emerged with a different name, character or use; mere branding, polishing or making goods marketable was insufficient. On the facts, the assessee supplied or financed essential parts, controlled assembly through artisans or units, paid labour on a piece-rate basis, and retained ownership throughout the process. The finishing work at the assessee's premises was only the last stage of an integrated process by which locks came into existence. The activity was therefore manufacturing in substance, and the assessee was treated as a manufacturer of locks; the Tribunal's contrary view was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276885