https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94080 Duty demand could not be confirmed above the amount stated in the show cause notice and corrigendum, because Section 11A(2) limits determination to the duty made known to the assessee in the notice served. The corrigendum reducing the demand was treated as effective, so a later higher confirmation was impermissible. Where the department sought finalisation of provisional assessment, the prescribed procedure under Rule 9B(5) had to be followed, including a proper notice under that rule. The adjudicating authority could not convert the proceedings to justify a higher demand than the assessee had been put on notice of, and the excess demand was therefore not sustainable. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:32:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94080 Duty demand could not be confirmed above the amount stated in the show cause notice and corrigendum, because Section 11A(2) limits determination to the duty made known to the assessee in the notice served. The corrigendum reducing the demand was treated as effective, so a later higher confirmation was impermissible. Where the department sought finalisation of provisional assessment, the prescribed procedure under Rule 9B(5) had to be followed, including a proper notice under that rule. The adjudicating authority could not convert the proceedings to justify a higher demand than the assessee had been put on notice of, and the excess demand was therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94080