1. At the outset, the learned Advocate invited our attention to show cause notice dated the 4th August, 1976 issued by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay X Dn., which ultimately led to the present proceedings. It was contended that in the said show cause notice there is no mention that the appellants were affixing brand names of other parties to the goods being manufactured by them and as to why the selling price of the parties for whom the branded goods were being manufactured should not be deemed to be the correct assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act instead of the prices declared by the appellants in their price lists filed before the lower authorities. She further submitted that this point was abundantly brought out in their revision application which is being treated as an appeal vide paragraph 11. The following sentences occurring in the said paragraph are reproduced below for proper appreciation of the contention made :- "...In the said order the Assistant Collector for the first time raised certain issues of which no notice whatsoever was at any time given to the Petitioners. The Assistant Collector observed that the two parties namely Messrs Bhagwan Motors to whom the Petitioners supplied fan belts in the brand name "CTEX" and Messrs Ratan Autos, Bombay in the brand name "IQBAL" were deemed to be 'manufacturers' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the said Act...." It was urged by the learned Advocate that both the Asstt. Collector and Appellate Collector had passed orders which were not strictly in compliance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as they covered ground which was beyond the show cause notice referred to earlier. Another point urged by the learned Advocate was that the appellants were showing the same price for their goods irrespective of whether the brand of any other company was affixed to the goods or otherwise and that the price charged was the same for all buyers including the two parties in whose case their brand name was affixed.
The learned Advocate submitted that on this preliminary point alone the impugned orders of the Appellate Collector and the Assistant Collector deserved to be set aside.
2. Shri Mahesh Kumar, the learned representative of the respondent, conceded that the contention made by the learned Advocate for the appellants was in order and that the lower authorities while passing the adjudication and the appellate order had gone beyond the purview of the charge contained in the show cause notice.
3. He have heard both the sides. Since it is a common ground between the two parties now that both the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector passed orders covering issues which were not the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 4-8-1976, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 5-4-1978 passed by the Appellate Collector and the order dated 14-3-1977 passed by the Asstt. Collector and direct that the matter be readjudicated with reference to what is set out in the show cause notice dated 4-8-1976. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.