Scope of show cause notice controls remand adjudication and duty on PCM was sustained on that basis.

An adjudicating authority acting on remand must stay within the remand directions and cannot reopen issues already set aside, including duty on hard pitch, extra hard pitch, soft pitch and total pitch. The settled principle applied is that an adjudication cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice, and a defect in the notice cannot be cured at the adjudication or appellate stage. On that basis, the remand proceedings were confined to PCM and the assessee's claim to Notification No. 28/89-C.E.; the quantification of duty on PCM with interest under the Central Excise Act was treated as consistent with the remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority, while giving effect to remand directions on PCM, could be faulted for not re-verifying duty payment on hard pitch, extra hard pitch, soft pitch and total pitch, and whether the impugned order quantifying duty on PCM suffered from any infirmity.

Analysis: The demand on hard pitch, extra hard pitch, soft pitch and total pitch had already been set aside in the earlier round on the ground that the show cause notice had proceeded on an incorrect classification and the authorities could not sustain a demand on a new classification not proposed in the notice. The dispute in the remand proceedings was confined to PCM and to the assessee's entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 28/89-C.E. dated 01.03.1989. The adjudicating authority, therefore, was not required to reopen or re-verify duty on the other products. The settled principle applied was that adjudication cannot travel beyond the scope of the show cause notice and any deficiency in the notice cannot be cured at the adjudication or appellate stage. On that basis, the quantification of duty on PCM under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was found to be in accordance with the remand directions.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be free from infirmity and the Revenue's challenge to the quantification of duty on PCM was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decision sustains the duty demand on PCM as quantified on remand and leaves undisturbed the prior setting aside of the demand on the other products.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order cannot confirm or enlarge a demand on a basis not proposed in the show cause notice, and the authority acting on remand must confine itself to the issues left open by the remand directions.

---