Provisional assessment demands cannot exceed the show cause notice without a corrigendum, even in appellate proceedings.

In provisional assessment disputes under Rule 9B, a revised differential duty demand cannot be sustained beyond the scope of the original show cause notice unless the notice is first corrected by a proper corrigendum. Where the notice already quantified the differential duty on the available records, including RT-12 returns, a Chartered Accountant's certificate and the assessee's working, the appellate authority cannot travel beyond that notice to support a higher demand on the basis that some materials were not fully considered. The decision therefore confirms that Section 35E(4) cannot be used to enlarge the demand beyond what was originally proposed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could, by an application under Section 35E(4), seek a higher differential duty than what was proposed in the show cause notice and whether the appellate authority could sustain such a demand by going beyond the scope of the notice in proceedings relating to finalisation of provisional assessment.

Analysis: The assessment dispute arose out of provisional assessment under Rule 9B, and the show cause notice had already worked out the differential duty on the basis of the records then available. The original authority dealt with the materials placed before it, including RT-12 returns, the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the assessee's working, and finalised the assessments. The Revenue's attempt before the Commissioner (Appeals) was to sustain a higher demand on the footing that certain records were not properly considered. The Court held that the basis for the revised demand was already within the materials supporting the show cause notice and that any attempt to claim a higher amount required an appropriate corrigendum to the notice. In the absence of such a corrigendum, the appellate authority could not be permitted to travel beyond the scope of the notice.

Conclusion: The Revenue could not demand a higher differential duty than that proposed in the show cause notice by invoking Section 35E(4), and the Tribunal was right in setting aside the appellate order.

---