https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81809 Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellants because the show cause notices did not propose recovery from them, and the adjudication orders travelled beyond the scope of the notices. The demand was therefore unsustainable and set aside. Penalties also failed because the structurals were manufactured and erected by independent job workers, and no evidence showed those job workers to be dummies or facades of the appellants. On that footing, a supplier of raw materials was not treated as the manufacturer, so the excise penalties were likewise set aside. The impugned orders were quashed, with liberty to proceed lawfully against the job workers if warranted. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:34:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81809 Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellants because the show cause notices did not propose recovery from them, and the adjudication orders travelled beyond the scope of the notices. The demand was therefore unsustainable and set aside. Penalties also failed because the structurals were manufactured and erected by independent job workers, and no evidence showed those job workers to be dummies or facades of the appellants. On that footing, a supplier of raw materials was not treated as the manufacturer, so the excise penalties were likewise set aside. The impugned orders were quashed, with liberty to proceed lawfully against the job workers if warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81809