https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123471 A cess demand could not be sustained when the adjudicating authority confirmed it on a ground not stated in the show cause notices and outside the remand directions. The notices alleged only that the tractors fell within the scheduled industry of agriculture machinery under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the remand was limited to that question. The authority instead relied on a different notification and treated the tractors as covered by the scheduled industry of transportation. As that basis was neither pleaded in the notices nor authorised by the remand, the cess demand was set aside and the order was upheld in favour of the respondents. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:18:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123471 A cess demand could not be sustained when the adjudicating authority confirmed it on a ground not stated in the show cause notices and outside the remand directions. The notices alleged only that the tractors fell within the scheduled industry of agriculture machinery under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and the remand was limited to that question. The authority instead relied on a different notification and treated the tractors as covered by the scheduled industry of transportation. As that basis was neither pleaded in the notices nor authorised by the remand, the cess demand was set aside and the order was upheld in favour of the respondents. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123471