https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51961 The Tribunal held that the appellant, M/s. Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd., was not the manufacturer of the excisable goods in question as they subcontracted fabrication work to M/s. H.B. Construction Co. The Tribunal emphasized that supplying raw materials or supervising fabrication does not automatically confer manufacturer status. Relying on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal ruled that job workers or subcontractors can only be deemed manufacturers if they have an independent unit and control over the manufacturing process. Consequently, the appellant was not liable to pay Central Excise duty, and the appeals were allowed with the impugned order set aside. en-us Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:15:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51961 The Tribunal held that the appellant, M/s. Surindra Engineering Co. Ltd., was not the manufacturer of the excisable goods in question as they subcontracted fabrication work to M/s. H.B. Construction Co. The Tribunal emphasized that supplying raw materials or supervising fabrication does not automatically confer manufacturer status. Relying on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal ruled that job workers or subcontractors can only be deemed manufacturers if they have an independent unit and control over the manufacturing process. Consequently, the appellant was not liable to pay Central Excise duty, and the appeals were allowed with the impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51961