Show Cause Notice limits adjudication: duty demand cannot be sustained on a new valuation basis without evidence.

A duty demand based on non-availability of invoices and a proposed value enhancement failed when that foundation collapsed. The adjudicating authority could not sustain the demand, penalty, or confiscation by switching to a different valuation method that had not been put to notice in the show cause notice. Adjudication must remain confined to the scope of the notice, and a new basis unsupported by evidence cannot be introduced at the stage of decision. The Revenue's appeal failed because no material showed that examination of all invoices would have established evasion, and mere presumption was insufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and consequential penalty and confiscation could be sustained when the proposed enhancement of value in the show cause notice lost its basis and the adjudication was sought to be supported on a different method not proposed in the notice.

Analysis: The demand had been founded on non-availability of invoices and a proposed value enhancement linked to the earlier notices. Once that foundation failed, the adjudicating authority could not sustain the proceedings by adopting a fresh valuation method that was not put to notice. Adjudication must remain within the scope of the show cause notice. The Revenue also led no evidence to show that scrutiny of all invoices would have established evasion; a bare presumption was insufficient.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order cannot travel beyond the show cause notice, and a duty demand cannot be sustained on a new basis unsupported by evidence and not proposed in the notice.

---