Show Cause Notice Limits and Duty Re-computation: demand failed on new grounds, with only limited remand for recomputation

Adjudication under a show cause notice cannot be sustained on grounds not specifically invoked, so the denial of exemption and demand based on change of classification and alleged non-availability of exemption for the relevant period could not be upheld on extraneous grounds. The Revenue's challenge to dropping of demand failed. On the assessee's side, duty liability on certain products, including tank mastics and shalikote, required limited re-computation because some varieties were exempt, but a refund could not be granted in these proceedings without a proper refund application. The matter was remanded only for recomputation, not for refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue could sustain denial of exemption and demand on grounds not invoked in the show cause notice, including change of classification and non-availability of exemption for the relevant period; and (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to re-computation of duty liability on some products and to consideration of the alleged excess demand on tank mastics, but not to a refund claim in the absence of any refund proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue could sustain denial of exemption and demand on grounds not invoked in the show cause notice, including change of classification and non-availability of exemption for the relevant period.

Analysis: Adjudication is confined to the scope of the allegations made in the show cause notice. Where the notice did not deny exemption on the basis now urged by Revenue, nor proceed on the footing of re-classification as a ground of denial, the adjudicating authority could not travel beyond the notice and sustain demand on extraneous grounds. The appellate authority was therefore correct in rejecting the Revenue's challenge.

Conclusion: The Revenue's objection to the dropping of demand failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to re-computation of duty liability on some products and to consideration of the alleged excess demand on tank mastics, but not to a refund claim in the absence of any refund proceedings.

Analysis: The assessee's grievance regarding computation of duty on tank mastics required examination by the original authority, and the duty liability on shalikote also required re-computation because some varieties were exempt. However, a refund claim could not be entertained in the present proceedings when no refund application had been filed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter therefore warranted remand for limited recomputation, not grant of refund in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessee succeeded only to the extent of remand for re-computation of duty liability.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal was allowed only for limited remand to recompute duty liability on the disputed products.

Ratio Decidendi: Adjudication under a show cause notice cannot rest on grounds not specifically invoked therein, and a refund cannot be granted in excise appellate proceedings absent a proper refund claim.

---