https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92622 A demand under central excise could not be sustained where the show cause notice proceeded on the basis that another noticee was the manufacturer and alleged only suppression and misdeclaration, but the adjudication order relied instead on a hired labour theory and collusion not pleaded in the notice. Because the goods were manufactured and exported under Central Excise supervision, and the notice did not allege that the appellant was the manufacturer or involved in collusion, liability could not be fastened on enlarged grounds. An adjudication order cannot travel beyond the show cause notice, so the demand and recovery were set aside. en-us Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:42:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92622 A demand under central excise could not be sustained where the show cause notice proceeded on the basis that another noticee was the manufacturer and alleged only suppression and misdeclaration, but the adjudication order relied instead on a hired labour theory and collusion not pleaded in the notice. Because the goods were manufactured and exported under Central Excise supervision, and the notice did not allege that the appellant was the manufacturer or involved in collusion, liability could not be fastened on enlarged grounds. An adjudication order cannot travel beyond the show cause notice, so the demand and recovery were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92622