https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53197 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. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:26:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53197 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53197