https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84027 The appellate authority could not travel beyond the show cause notice or the scope of the appeal to direct fresh classification of inputs, disallow Modvat credit, or impose duty and penalty. In the absence of a Revenue appeal or cross-objections, it had to confine itself to the issues properly before it, and the procedural safeguards under the proviso to Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were not shown to have been followed. Tariff-heading differences in gate passes, by themselves, did not justify denial of Modvat credit where the inputs were correctly described and otherwise eligible. The remand order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:16:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84027 The appellate authority could not travel beyond the show cause notice or the scope of the appeal to direct fresh classification of inputs, disallow Modvat credit, or impose duty and penalty. In the absence of a Revenue appeal or cross-objections, it had to confine itself to the issues properly before it, and the procedural safeguards under the proviso to Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were not shown to have been followed. Tariff-heading differences in gate passes, by themselves, did not justify denial of Modvat credit where the inputs were correctly described and otherwise eligible. The remand order was therefore beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84027