Tribunal rules in favor of noticees, finding Commissioner exceeded scope of notice in Central Excise Duty appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to demand Central Excise Duty from noticees not mentioned in the show cause notice. It was held that the Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the notice, and the noticees were not liable to pay duty. The decision clarified that the department could not demand duty from M/s. ATEL, resolving the appeal's main issue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Commissioner demanding Central Excise Duty from noticees not mentioned in the show cause notice.
2. Revenue appealing against the Commissioner's order.
3. Scope of the show cause notice and duty demand.
4. Tribunal's decision on the appeals of the noticees.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and the consequences.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the Commissioner's decision to demand Central Excise Duty from 14 noticees, even though they were not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice. The Commissioner held that these noticees had to discharge the duty indicated in the notice, which was challenged by the Revenue in their appeal.

2. The Revenue's appeal was focused on setting aside the Commissioner's order regarding the demand for differential duty from the 14 noticees instead of M/s. ATEL. The appeal did not contest the Commissioner's findings that M/s. ATEL was not the manufacturer from whom duty should be demanded.

3. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the Commissioner had overstepped the scope of the show cause notice by demanding duty from noticees not included in the notice. The Tribunal noted that the persons from whom duty was demanded had already succeeded in their appeals before the Tribunal, where it was established that they were not liable to pay duty.

4. The Tribunal referenced a previous order where the appeals of the noticees were allowed, indicating that the Commissioner's actions were beyond the notice's scope. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order needed to be set aside, clarifying that this decision did not entitle the department to demand duty from M/s. ATEL.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the Commissioner had exceeded the scope of the show cause notice by demanding duty from noticees not specifically mentioned. The decision to set aside the order did not grant the department the authority to demand duty from M/s. ATEL, thus resolving the issue raised by the Revenue in their appeal.

---