Penalty beyond show-cause notice scope was impermissible; specific penal provision under Rule 191B(6) prevailed over general Rule 209.

A show-cause notice alleging contravention of Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be expanded to sustain penalty under Rule 209 after remand for de novo adjudication. The later telegram was treated only as an intimation, not as an amendment to the notice. The adjudicating authority was required to stay within the scope of the original notice and the remand, and the specific penal provision in Rule 191B(6) prevailed over the general resort to Rule 209. Penalty was therefore confined to Rule 191B(6) and reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the show-cause notice alleged contravention of Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the matter had been remanded for de novo adjudication; and whether the quantum of penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The show-cause notice alleged contravention of Rule 191B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and did not stipulate penalty under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The later telegram was treated as an intimation and not as an addendum to the show-cause notice. After remand for de novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority was required to remain within the scope of the original notice and the remand. The specific penal provision in Rule 191B(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, being a self-contained provision, had to prevail over the general resort to Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: Invocation of Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be beyond the scope of the show-cause notice and remand. Penalty was confined to Rule 191B(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,000/-.

---