Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand and penalty could be sustained when the adjudicating authority changed the basis of estimating production and clearances from the method proposed in the show cause notice without putting the assessee to notice.
Analysis: The notice quantified alleged suppressed production on the basis of electricity consumption per unit of production. In the adjudication order, that method was discarded and a different basis, namely raw material consumption, was adopted to rework production and duty liability. The assessee had no notice that such a different estimation formula would be applied, and the revised computation therefore introduced a new foundation for the demand beyond the scope of the notice. Even though there was some material suggesting clandestine clearances, the demand could not be sustained when the adjudication travelled beyond the notice in the manner of estimation.
Conclusion: The demand and penalty were unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the impugned order was set aside for adopting a basis of estimation not proposed in the notice.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication cannot sustain a duty demand by substituting a new method of quantification that was not disclosed in the show cause notice, since the demand then travels beyond the notice.