New duty-demand grounds cannot be raised on appeal when they were omitted from the show cause notice and earlier proceedings.

The Department could not introduce a new additional-consideration basis for assessable value at the appellate stage when that ground was absent from the show cause notice and had not been raised before the lower authorities. The references to after-sales service expenses, marketing and advertisement expenses, and free technical know-how were considered only in relation to the separate allegation of inter-party relationship, not as a foundation for value enhancement. A fresh duty demand theory cannot be advanced for the first time on appeal, and the Department's attempt to press that contention was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department could, at the appellate stage, seek inclusion of alleged additional consideration in the assessable value when that ground was not raised in the show cause notice or before the lower authorities.

Analysis: The appeal proceeded only on the allegation that the buyer had borne after-sales service expenses, marketing and advertisement expenses, and had supplied technical know-how free of charge. That contention was not part of the show cause notice and was not raised before the Assistant Collector or the Collector (Appeals). The reference in the appellate order to technical know-how and marketing expenses was only for considering the separate allegation of relationship between the parties, not as a foundation for demanding inclusion of additional consideration in value. A new basis for duty demand could not be introduced for the first time at that stage.

Conclusion: The Department was not permitted to press the additional-consideration theory, and the appeal failed.

---