No duty recovery can be enforced against a person not served notice or made a party to adjudication.

Duty recovery could not be enforced against a person who was neither issued notice nor made a party to the adjudication proceedings. The notice was addressed only to another concern, and the appellant was not charged with any contravention in those proceedings. In the absence of notice and participation, the impugned order could not bind the appellant for recovery purposes. Recovery of central excise duty from a non-noticee was therefore without legal basis, and the Department was directed not to recover duty from the appellant under that order.

---

---

Issues: Whether central excise duty could be recovered from the appellant under the impugned order when no notice had been issued to it and it was not made a party to the adjudication.

Analysis: The appellant was not charged with any contravention in the proceedings, and the notices were issued only to another concern. In the absence of notice and participation, the appellant could not be treated as bound by the impugned order for recovery purposes. Recovery of duty from a person not proceeded against would be without legal basis.

Conclusion: Recovery of duty from the appellant under the impugned order was held impermissible and the appellant was found not liable to pay under that order.

Final Conclusion: The Department was directed not to recover any duty from the appellant under the impugned order, effectively granting relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: No duty recovery can be enforced against a person who was neither issued notice nor made a party to the adjudication proceedings.

---