https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757870 CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant was not liable for excise duty despite claiming manufacturer status in tender documents. Department failed to prove actual manufacturing activity at appellant's premises. Evidence showed goods were manufactured at job worker's premises, making job worker liable under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Following precedent in Comet Technocom case, tribunal ruled appellant cannot be held liable merely for claiming manufacturer status without establishing actual manufacturing activity. Lower authority's order set aside, appeal allowed on merits and limitation. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757870 CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant was not liable for excise duty despite claiming manufacturer status in tender documents. Department failed to prove actual manufacturing activity at appellant's premises. Evidence showed goods were manufactured at job worker's premises, making job worker liable under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Following precedent in Comet Technocom case, tribunal ruled appellant cannot be held liable merely for claiming manufacturer status without establishing actual manufacturing activity. Lower authority's order set aside, appeal allowed on merits and limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757870