Show cause notice variance with statutory reference did not vitiate demand where allegations were fully disclosed and no prejudice arose.

A variation between the show cause notice citing Section 11A and the adjudication order confirming demand under Rule 96ZP did not, by itself, invalidate the demand where the notice clearly alleged non-payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme and the ACP fixed by the competent authority. The allegations were fully disclosed, so the assessee was not prejudiced and the order did not travel beyond the notice. The objection on this ground was rejected, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded to that extent. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be set aside on the ground that the show cause notice invoked Section 11A while the adjudication order confirmed the demand under Rule 96ZP, and whether the order had travelled beyond the show cause notice.

Analysis: The notice was issued in the context of Section 3A and clearly alleged that the assessee had not discharged duty liability in accordance with the compounded levy scheme and the ACP fixed by the competent authority. The allegations were thus fully disclosed in the notice, and the case was not one where two distinct and unrelated statutory provisions were invoked so as to prejudice the assessee or to make the adjudication order inconsistent with the notice. The setting aside of the demand merely on the ground of variation in statutory reference was therefore not justified.

Conclusion: The objection that the demand travelled beyond the show cause notice was rejected, and the Revenue's challenge to that extent succeeded. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for on merits.

---