Interest demand beyond the show cause notice was unsustainable where neither notice nor adjudication proposed it.

Interest could not be demanded where the show cause notice did not propose recovery of interest and the adjudication order also did not direct payment of it. The appellate authority could not enlarge the scope of the original proceedings by introducing an interest demand for the first time in appeal, because a levy of interest must arise from the notice and the adjudication framework itself. The direction to pay interest was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest could be demanded from the appellant when the show cause notice did not propose recovery of interest and the adjudication order also did not direct payment of interest.

Analysis: The notice did not call upon the appellant to show cause against levy of interest. The appellate authority could not enlarge the scope of the original proceedings by directing payment of interest for the first time in appeal. A demand or direction for interest must arise from the notice and the adjudication framework and cannot be introduced beyond them.

Conclusion: The direction to pay interest was unsustainable and was set aside. The appeal succeeded to that extent.

---