JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2011 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that non-invocation of a proviso appended to Notification in the show cause notice issued by the department, which was otherwise covered by Rule 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 invoked in the show cause notice, can be a ground for dismissal of the said show cause notice.?” 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeal briefly stated are that the respondent i.e M/s Chenab Textiles Mills, Kathua which is holding Central Excise Registration for the manufacture of Cotton Yarn/Non Cellulosic/Cellulosic/Acrylic/Acrylone yarn falling under Chapters 52 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 contravened the provisions of erstwhile Rule 9(1), 49, 52, 173C, 173G, 173F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by not making the payment of adequate central excise duty during the period from November 1994 to July 1996. During the aforesaid period, the respondent cleared huge quantity of cotton yarn/non-cellulosic/cellulosic/acrylic/acrylone yarn and paid the central excise duty on the value determined on the basis of cost of single yarn at the spindle stage and did not pay the differential amount of duty on the assessable value as determined at the time of removal of goods from the factory premises after carrying out various processes. Accordingly, nine show cause notices covering the period from November 1994 to July 1996 were issued to the respondent and the total duty to the tune of Rs.2,69,20,941.27/-, penalty as well as interest as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 was demanded. The respondent filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notices. 3. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, J&K Jammu vide order dated 23.12.2004 discharged all the show cause notices and dropped the demand raised vide aforesaid show cause notices inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid show cause notices were required to be discharged under Section 11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal). Being aggrieved with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal vide order dated 12.06.2007 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and held that out of the nine show cause notices issued to the respondent, 1st four show cause notices were fully covered by the ratio of the decision of the High Court dated 13.11.2001 and the remaining show cause notices except 5th show cause notice which partially covered the period up to 18.05.1995 are invalid. However, the remaining show cause notices were held to be valid. It was further held by the Tribunal that a perusal of show cause notice would indicate that no specific mention has been made with regard to the proviso which was added by Notification No. 84/1995 dated 18.05.1995. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue at the very outset fairly submitted that the 1st four show cause notices pertain to the period from November 1994 to April 1995 and 5th show cause notice insofar as it pertains to the period from 1st May, 1995 up to 18.05.1995 is invalid in terms of decision of High Court dated 13.11.2001 referred to supra. However, the remaining show cause notices are valid and could not have been quashed on the ground that there is no mention of the notification dated 18.05.1995 in the show cause notices, even though the aforesaid show cause notices are otherwise covered by Rule 9 and Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules. While inviting the attention of this Court to the show cause notices, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that in the show cause notices, sufficient particulars have been given to apprise the assessee with regard to the basis of demand and no prejudice has been suffered by the assessee on account of non-mentioning of the notification dated 18.05.1995. It is further submitted that the issue with regard vagueness of the show cause notices was neither raised by the assessee either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the Appellate Authority and the same has been raised for the first time in the objections which have been filed in the instant appeal. It is further submitted that the issue with regard vagueness of the show cause notices was neither raised by the assessee either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the Appellate Authority and the same has been raised for the first time in the objections which have been filed in the instant appeal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the Revenue has referred to a decision of Division Bench of Allahabd High Court in the case of Raghunath International Ltd vs. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others, 2011 (266) ELT 432. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the show cause notices for the period from May, 1995 up to July 1996 are vague and unintelligible, inasmuch they do disclose the basis on which the demand of the excise duty, penalty and interest has been made by the Revenue. It is further submitted that there is no mention of withdrawal of the exemption which was granted to the assessee, therefore, the same has resulted in prejudice to the assessee. It is submitted that had the assessee been furnished the particulars with regard to the notification dated 18.05.1995, the assessee would have effectively contested the proceedings. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the assessee has referred to decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of 1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd-2007 (215) ELT 489 (Supreme Court, 2. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd-2007(213) ELT 489 (Supreme Court), 3. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd- 2006(201) ELT 513 (Supreme Court) and 4.Kaur & Singh vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi-1997(94) ELT 289 (Supreme Court). 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, under the trade notice No. 112/94-CE dated 15.12.1994, the duty liability could have been discharged by the assessee at single yarn off spindle stage. However, subsequently by issuance of notification dated 18.05.1995, the aforesaid exemption which was granted to the assessee was withdrawn. In other words, from 18.05.1995 onwards, the assessee was required to discharge the duty liability only after doubling multi-folding of the yarn at the time of clearance. However, subsequently by issuance of notification dated 18.05.1995, the aforesaid exemption which was granted to the assessee was withdrawn. In other words, from 18.05.1995 onwards, the assessee was required to discharge the duty liability only after doubling multi-folding of the yarn at the time of clearance. It is pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal in paragraph No.3 of the order itself has held that the addition of the proviso by way of notification dated 18.05.1995 made the assessee ineligible for exemption in terms of the aforesaid notification as the clearance of yarn from a factory having the facilities, including plant and equipment for producing single yarn were not extended with the said exemption. The aforesaid position was clarified by issuance of circular issued by the Board on 25.04.1996. However, the show cause notices were invalid merely on the ground that in the show cause notices, no specific mention has been made to the proviso added to the notification dated 18.05.1995. 6. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant extract of one of the demand cum show cause notice dated 11.10.1996 which reads as under: “From Nov’ 94 onwards, the Noticee has started entering the production of yarn (manufactured by them) in the RG-I Register at the Single Yarn stage i.e. at the spindle stage and after paying the Central Excise duty at this stage only, removed the production for Captive Consumption for doubling/multi-folding etc of yarn. Thus the doubled/multifold yarn or finished yarn i.e resultant yarn manufactured out of this single stage yarn was removed by the Noticee without payment of any Central Excise Duty”. 7. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid show cause notice, it is evident that the aforesaid show cause notice gives the sufficient particulars with regard to the basis on which the demand of duty, penalty and interest was being made by the Revenue. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee did not raise the issue with regard to vagueness of the show cause notices either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid contention has been raised for the first time in the objections which have been filed in this appeal. Therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to raise a new plea for the first time in this appeal. The aforesaid contention has been raised for the first time in the objections which have been filed in this appeal. Therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to raise a new plea for the first time in this appeal. No prejudice has been suffered by the asseesee as it has been apprised with regard to the grounds on which the demand with regard to duty, penalty as well as interest was made by the Revenue. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Toyo Engg. India Ltd- 2006 (201) ELT 513 (Supreme Court). Relevant paragraph No. 16 of the judgment supra is reproduced hereunder: “Learned counsel for the Revenue tried to raise some of the submissions which were not allowed to be raised by the Tribunal before us, as well. We agree with the Tribunal that the revenue could not be allowed to raise these submissions for the first time in the second appeal before the Tribunal. Neither adjudicating authority nor the appellate authority had denied the facility of the project import to the respondent on any of these grounds. These grounds did not find mention in the show cause notice as well. The Department cannot be travel beyond the show cause notice. Even in the grounds of appeals these points have not been taken”. 8. In view of the preceding analysis, we answer the substantial question of law in negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the result, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority are hereby set aside and quashed. The Revenue shall be entitled to charge/demand duty, penalty as well as interest from the assessee for a period from 18.05.1995 onwards. 9. To the aforesaid extent, the appeal is disposed of.