https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40707 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that affixing a brand name alone does not automatically classify them as manufacturers under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court highlighted the need to consider additional factors beyond brand name affixation to determine manufacturing status. The decision protected the petitioners from being erroneously classified as manufacturers based solely on brand name usage, quashing the Superintendent's decision and restraining any action on that basis. No costs were awarded to either party. en-us Sun, 29 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2010 16:01:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40707 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that affixing a brand name alone does not automatically classify them as manufacturers under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court highlighted the need to consider additional factors beyond brand name affixation to determine manufacturing status. The decision protected the petitioners from being erroneously classified as manufacturers based solely on brand name usage, quashing the Superintendent's decision and restraining any action on that basis. No costs were awarded to either party. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 29 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40707