https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50688 A person who contracts for furniture manufacture, arranges materials, supervises execution, controls quality, and remains answerable to the customer is treated as the manufacturer when hired labour merely performs the work under that person's control. The article also rejects exemption as handicrafts absent proof of the required characteristics, and states that completed furniture does not become non-excisable merely because it is later bolted to walls or floors, since marketability is preserved. In remand, the adjudicating authority was directed to consider the cum-duty price principle and the plea on interest if duty is found payable, while the substantive pleas on manufacture, exemption, and marketability were rejected. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:40:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50688 A person who contracts for furniture manufacture, arranges materials, supervises execution, controls quality, and remains answerable to the customer is treated as the manufacturer when hired labour merely performs the work under that person's control. The article also rejects exemption as handicrafts absent proof of the required characteristics, and states that completed furniture does not become non-excisable merely because it is later bolted to walls or floors, since marketability is preserved. In remand, the adjudicating authority was directed to consider the cum-duty price principle and the plea on interest if duty is found payable, while the substantive pleas on manufacture, exemption, and marketability were rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50688