Show cause notice limits in indirect tax cannot be expanded by appellate directions beyond the revenue's pleaded case.

Adjudicatory and appellate authorities in indirect tax matters cannot travel beyond the allegations in the show cause notice. Directions limiting CENVAT credit or requiring verification of duty payment, when those matters were not put in issue by the notice, expand the controversy beyond the revenue's case and are without jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal therefore could not sustain such directions insofar as they went beyond the notice, and those directions were liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal could issue and affirm directions limiting CENVAT credit and requiring verification of duty payment when such matters were not put in issue by the show cause notice.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the settled principle that adjudicatory and appellate authorities under fiscal law cannot travel beyond the allegations and case made out in the show cause notice. Directions that introduce a new basis for denying or restricting relief, or that expand the controversy to matters never canvassed by the revenue, are beyond jurisdiction. Even if the underlying credit dispute was otherwise capable of adjudication, the appellate directions had to remain confined to the scope of the notice and the issues raised therein.

Conclusion: The directions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal, insofar as they went beyond the show cause notice, were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate or adjudicatory authorities in indirect tax matters cannot sustain, expand, or condition relief on grounds not alleged in the show cause notice, and any direction that travels beyond the notice is without jurisdiction.

---