https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313526 Where the agreements showed one party as seller and the other as buyer, with the goods manufactured in the seller's own plant and sold only after manufacture, the buyer was not treated as the manufacturer for central excise purposes. Quality stipulations, sample testing, approval before release, and affixation of foreign trade marks were held to be safeguards for conformity and not control over the manufacturing process. The Court therefore held that the buyer did not fall within Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the excise demand requiring a licence was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:12:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313526 Where the agreements showed one party as seller and the other as buyer, with the goods manufactured in the seller's own plant and sold only after manufacture, the buyer was not treated as the manufacturer for central excise purposes. Quality stipulations, sample testing, approval before release, and affixation of foreign trade marks were held to be safeguards for conformity and not control over the manufacturing process. The Court therefore held that the buyer did not fall within Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the excise demand requiring a licence was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313526