Duty demand must stay against the noticee only; fastening liability on another party is impermissible and warrants remand.

Duty demand under a show cause notice must be adjudicated only against the noticee to whom the notice is issued; liability cannot be fastened on another party for consignments covered by separate notices. Where the adjudicating authority demanded duty from an entity that was not the proper noticee, the order was fundamentally defective, and the appellate authority's failure to notice that defect could not cure it. Fresh adjudication was therefore required in accordance with law and natural justice, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside with a remand for de novo consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand arising from show cause notices could be fastened against a person other than the noticee for whom the notices were issued, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had demanded the entire duty in respect of all three bills of entry from one entity, even though the notices were issued separately to different importers for their respective consignments. Liability could not be shifted from the noticee concerned to another party. The lower appellate authority also failed to notice this fundamental defect in the order of adjudication. In these circumstances, fresh adjudication was necessary in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The demand could not be enforced against the wrong party. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty demand under a show cause notice must be adjudicated only against the noticee to whom the notice is issued, and fastening liability on another person is impermissible.

---