<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (7) TMI 194 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50708</link>
    <description>Fabrication undertaken by an independent contractor on a principal-to-principal basis makes the contractor, not the customer, the manufacturer for central excise purposes when the contractor uses its own materials, machinery, labour and design. Mere storage and issue of raw materials from the customer&#039;s premises does not by itself create a master-servant relationship or show the customer exercised the control and supervision needed to shift manufacturing liability. On the facts described, the contractor carried out the manufacturing activity, so the customer was not liable to excise duty on the fabricated aluminium ductings and air grills.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:09:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 194 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50708</link>
      <description>Fabrication undertaken by an independent contractor on a principal-to-principal basis makes the contractor, not the customer, the manufacturer for central excise purposes when the contractor uses its own materials, machinery, labour and design. Mere storage and issue of raw materials from the customer&#039;s premises does not by itself create a master-servant relationship or show the customer exercised the control and supervision needed to shift manufacturing liability. On the facts described, the contractor carried out the manufacturing activity, so the customer was not liable to excise duty on the fabricated aluminium ductings and air grills.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>