Defective show cause notice cannot support excise duty demand under a different rule when statutory requirements were not disclosed.

A show cause notice framed under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not sustain a duty demand under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J because the notice did not disclose the requirements of that provision. The High Court held that the ingredients of Rule 9(1) were different from those needed to invoke Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J, and a notice based on one rule could not be treated as satisfying the legal basis of the other. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable to that extent, though the authority was left free to proceed under Rule 10 if permissible in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice issued under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could sustain an order demanding duty under Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, when the notice did not disclose the requirements of that provision.

Analysis: The notice was framed on the footing of contravention of Rule 9(1) and its contents reflected the ingredients of that rule. The requirements for invoking Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J were different, and the appellate authority itself proceeded on the basis that the earlier approval had been inadvertent. In these circumstances, the notice could not be read as satisfying the legal requirements of Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J. The precedent relied upon by the Revenue was held to be distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained to the extent it proceeded on Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J, and the petition succeeded. The authority was left free to invoke Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J only if permissible in law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed with modification of the impugned order, and the challenge to the duty demand framework based on the defective notice was accepted in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot be sustained under a provision whose statutory requirements are not disclosed in the show cause notice merely because the notice cites a different rule on similar facts.

---