Duty demand limited by notice scope and limitation, with no basis to expand the period claimed.

A duty demand cannot be sustained for the entire period where the original show cause notice proposed only reclassification and did not seek recovery of duty, because duty can arise only through Section 11-A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellate authority had already limited the demand to six months from service of the memorandum of appeal, and that restriction was not challenged by the respondent. On those facts, there was no basis to expand the demand to the longer period claimed, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded for the entire period when the show cause notice only proposed reclassification and did not propose recovery of duty, and whether the appellate authority could restrict the demand to six months under the limitation provision.

Analysis: The only notice initially issued proposed reclassification of Acetylene Gas and did not propose any duty demand. A demand for duty could arise only under Section 11-A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The appellate authority had restricted the demand period to six months from service of the memorandum of appeal, and that part of the order was not challenged by the respondent. In these circumstances, no basis existed to enlarge the demand to the full period claimed in the appeal.

Conclusion: The demand for the longer period was not sustainable and the appeal failed.

---