Show-cause notice scope controls duty demand; a confirmed levy against an unnotified person is unsustainable.

Duty demand cannot be confirmed against a person who was not the subject of the original show-cause notice unless the notice is properly amended or otherwise brought within lawful scope. Here, the notice alleged manufacture and clearance by a different entity, but duty was later fastened on the appellant in de novo adjudication without any corrigendum or amendment. That shift in the basis of demand was impermissible, so the adjudication could not stand. Other issues, including valuation and departmental circulars, were not examined because the defect in the notice was fundamental.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty liability could be fastened on the appellant when the show-cause notice had demanded duty from another person and no corrigendum was issued.

Analysis: The notice alleged manufacture and clearance of the goods by a different entity and proposed penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the later de novo adjudication, duty was cast on the appellant without any amendment to the notice. Such a shift in the basis of demand was held to be impermissible. In view of this fundamental defect, the other contentions, including valuation and the effect of the departmental circulars, were not examined.

Conclusion: The demand raised against the appellant was unsustainable as it went beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not stand because the duty demand was confirmed against a person not covered by the original notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand cannot be confirmed against a person who was not made the subject of the original show-cause notice, unless the notice is properly amended or otherwise brought within lawful scope.

---