Joint venture excise liability must be raised against the manufacturer entity, not its non-manufacturing constituent

Excise demand under Rule 57CC could not be sustained against a joint venture constituent that merely supplied input material and was not the manufacturer of the final product. A joint venture was treated as a separate juristic entity, so any duty demand arising from goods manufactured by it had to be raised against the joint venture itself. Because the demand was not legally maintainable against the appellant, the related penalty also could not survive. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether demand and penalty under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained against a constituent of a joint venture when the goods were manufactured by the joint venture entity.

Analysis: The demand related to enriched pressmud compost manufactured by a joint venture of three companies, including the appellant. The appellant had only supplied input material and was not the manufacturer of the final product. A joint venture was treated as a distinct juristic entity separate from its constituent units, and therefore any duty demand in relation to goods manufactured by it had to be raised on the joint venture itself. As the demand was not legally sustainable against the appellant, the penalty also could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty were held to be illegal and unsustainable against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are manufactured by a joint venture that has separate juristic personality, excise demand in relation to such manufacture must be raised against the joint venture and not against its individual constituents who are not the manufacturers.

---