Limitation objection and notice-scope limits in excise adjudication: liability cannot rest on grounds not put to notice.

Commissioner (Appeals) was expected to exercise co-terminus appellate powers and deal with the limitation objection by a speaking order; failure to examine the issue and call for relevant information rendered the appellate order defective on that point. Liability under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the show cause notices were confined to classification and did not invoke that provision, because adjudication cannot travel beyond the scope of the notice or impose a charge not put to the assessee. The impugned order was set aside and the assessee succeeded on both objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to deal with the limitation objection by a speaking order while exercising co-terminus appellate powers; (ii) whether liability under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained when the show cause notices did not invoke that provision and the adjudication travelled beyond the scope of the notice.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to deal with the limitation objection by a speaking order while exercising co-terminus appellate powers.

Analysis: The appellate authority had the same amplitude of powers as the adjudicating authority and could have called for the relevant information to examine the limitation issue. Failure to exercise that power and to deal with the objection resulted in an order lacking proper adjudication on the point.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was not properly dealt with and the appellate order was vitiated on that count.

Issue (ii): whether liability under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained when the show cause notices did not invoke that provision and the adjudication travelled beyond the scope of the notice.

Analysis: The notices were issued for determination of classification, not for invoking Rule 57CC. A statutory authority cannot impose liability on a ground not put to notice to the assessee. Where a charge is not brought home through the show cause notice and defence is not invited on that basis, an order resting on that ground offends basic principles of jurisprudence and natural justice.

Conclusion: The demand under Rule 57CC could not be sustained because the order travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the assessee succeeding on both the limitation and notice-scope objections.

---