https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125613 A variation between the show cause notice citing Section 11A and the adjudication order confirming demand under Rule 96ZP did not, by itself, invalidate the demand where the notice clearly alleged non-payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme and the ACP fixed by the competent authority. The allegations were fully disclosed, so the assessee was not prejudiced and the order did not travel beyond the notice. The objection on this ground was rejected, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded to that extent. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125613 A variation between the show cause notice citing Section 11A and the adjudication order confirming demand under Rule 96ZP did not, by itself, invalidate the demand where the notice clearly alleged non-payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme and the ACP fixed by the competent authority. The allegations were fully disclosed, so the assessee was not prejudiced and the order did not travel beyond the notice. The objection on this ground was rejected, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded to that extent. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125613