Scope of show cause notice controls adjudication; order stayed for expanding demand beyond the notice's confines.

The show cause notice was confined to technical professional products sold through dealers to salons and alleged ineligibility for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority nevertheless expanded the controversy to include retail products and proceeded on the basis that the demand covered goods not actually proposed in the notice. That mismatch between the notice and the adjudication, coupled with the erroneous factual premise, was sufficient at the interim stage to warrant intervention, and the impugned order was stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order warranted stay on the ground that it proceeded beyond the scope of the show cause notice and on an erroneous factual premise.

Analysis: The show cause notice targeted only the technical professional products sold through dealers to salons and alleged that such goods were not eligible for assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority, however, framed and decided the matter on a broader premise that included both technical products and retail products, and proceeded on the assumption that the demand covered goods beyond those actually proposed in the notice. The resulting conclusion was therefore reached on a misconception of the facts and beyond the confines of the notice, which was sufficient at the interim stage to justify intervention.

Conclusion: The impugned order was stayed.

---