Settled classification permits re-computation of duty; implementation of existing orders is not beyond the show cause notice.

Classification having already attained finality, the direction to re-work differential duty under sections 173B and 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as implementation of the settled position, not a fresh adjudication. The original authority's instruction to the jurisdictional officer to recompute duty after the revised classification followed the existing tribunal orders and was held to be a mandatory consequence of that classification. The impugned order therefore was not considered to have travelled beyond the show cause notice, and no infirmity was found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside on the ground that it travelled beyond the show cause notice by directing re-working of duty after the classification of the product had already been settled.

Analysis: The dispute was not treated as one reopening classification, since the classification issue had already attained finality and the proceedings under section 173B and section 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had to be worked out in accordance with that settled position. The original authority only directed the jurisdictional officer to re-compute the differential duty consequent upon the revised classification and thereby implement the existing tribunal orders. Such a direction was held to be a mandatory consequence of the settled classification and not a fresh adjudication beyond the scope of the notice.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not travel beyond the show cause notice and no infirmity was found in it.

---