https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40406 Concurrent departmental findings, supported by evidence, established that the appellant's yarn supply, production financing, control over movement and sale of cloth, and retention of commercial benefit showed a device disguising manufacture on its own account. On that factual basis, the appellant fell within the statutory concept of manufacturer for excise purposes and could not rely on exemption notifications limited to specified independent powerloom units. The excise demand therefore stood, and the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 15 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40406 Concurrent departmental findings, supported by evidence, established that the appellant's yarn supply, production financing, control over movement and sale of cloth, and retention of commercial benefit showed a device disguising manufacture on its own account. On that factual basis, the appellant fell within the statutory concept of manufacturer for excise purposes and could not rely on exemption notifications limited to specified independent powerloom units. The excise demand therefore stood, and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40406