JUDGMENT : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. 1. The appellant challenges Annexure A10 order passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore dismissing his appeal, whereby Annexure A9 order passed by the Commissioner of Police confirming Annexure A8 order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Ernakulam-II was upheld by the Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the appellant was engaged in the manufacture and export of frozen marine products. The appellant's unit was a 100% Export Oriented Unit. For the purpose of transportation of the frozen sea food, the appellant had imported 5 refrigerated trucks, availing the benefit of Notification No. 13/1981 Cus. dated 09.02.1981. 3. Subsequently, the appellant had debonded its unit from 100% EOU to EPCG scheme. As part of the process of debonding, the appellant furnished Annexure A3 bond undertaking to pay customs duty on the trucks, if found payable, together with bank guarantee for 25% of the bond amount. On expiry of the bond and bank guarantee, the appellant failed to renew the bond and bank guarantee. Thereupon, the Department issued Annexure A6 show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why, for their failure, the bond and the bank guarantee shall not be enforced. The appellant filed his objections to the show cause notice, which resulted in Annexure A8 order, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal in Annexures A9 and A10. It is in this background, this appeal is filed. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and have considered the submissions made. 5. A of Annexures A8, A9 and A10 orders show that the respective authorities have not only examined the contentions of the appellant with respect to its failure to renew the bond and bank guarantee, but also examined the duty liability of the appellant and its ineligibility for the benefit of notification Nos. 13/1981 and 24/1997. According to us, as held by the Apex Court in its judgment in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1997) 10 SCC 379 and subsequent judgments, the foundation of the case is what is contained in the show cause notice. 13/1981 and 24/1997. According to us, as held by the Apex Court in its judgment in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1997) 10 SCC 379 and subsequent judgments, the foundation of the case is what is contained in the show cause notice. The show cause notice is confined to the appellant's failure to renew the bond and bank guarantee and the consequential entitlement of the respondent to enforce the bond and bank guarantee. The show cause notice did not contain any allegation with respect to the eligibility or ineligibility of the appellant for the benefit of the aforesaid notifications or its liability to pay duty. Despite that in the impugned orders, the appellant's duty liability has also been determined by the authorities. We are constrained to hold, in the adjudication, the authorities have gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice and therefore the orders cannot be sustained. In such circumstances, we set aside the orders impugned in this appeal and dispose of the appeal with the following directions: 1. The appellant shall furnish a fresh bond and bank guarantee with terms similar to those contained in Annexure A3 and the bank guarantee furnished for a period of one year. The bond and bank guarantee shall be furnished within four weeks from today and at the direction of the respondent, shall keep the bond and bank guarantee alive. 2. In the meanwhile, if the Department is of the opinion that the appellant is liable to pay duty in respect of the refrigerated trucks, it would be open to the Department to issue show cause, adjudicate the matter and enforce the liability, if any, against the appellant in accordance with law.