Wrong rule citation does not invalidate a demand notice where the authority had substantive power to recover the duty.

A demand notice is not invalid merely because it cites the wrong rule if the authority otherwise had jurisdiction to recover the duty under the correct provision. The governing principle is that an administrative demand is tested by its substance and legal foundation, not by a mistaken recital of the source of power. Where the competent authority could recover the duty under Rule 10 of the Central Excise and Salt Rules, an incorrect reference to Rule 9(2) did not, by itself, create prejudice or vitiate the notice. The challenge accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand notice issued with an incorrect reference to Rule 9(2) was invalid when the demand was otherwise supportable under Rule 10 of the Central Excise and Salt Rules.

Analysis: The demand notice was challenged only on the ground that it cited Rule 9(2) instead of the provision under which the duty could properly have been recovered. The controlling principle applied was that the legality of an administrative demand depends on its substance and jurisdictional foundation, not merely on the form or the precise recital of the source of power. Since the competent authority had power to recover the duty under Rule 10, a mistaken reference to another rule did not, by itself, cause prejudice or invalidate the notice.

Conclusion: The demand notice was not illegal or invalid merely because it mentioned the wrong rule, and the challenge to it failed.

---