Rules and Sections 8(2), 7, 9 and 36 of the Act, though the show cause notice mentioned about violation of Rules 101, 101-A and 103 of the Rules and Sections 8(2), 33 and 35 of the Act. He submitted that the show cause notice did not make reference to Rule 43 of the Rules or to Sections 7, 9 and 36 of the Act. He further submitted that in the impugned Order dated 21/11/2012, the respondent no. 1 has imposed fine of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) for violation of Sections 7, 8(2) and Section 9 of the Act and Rule 103 of the Rules, though there was no show cause notice in respect of Sections 7 and 9 of the Act. According to him, therefore, the respondent no. 2 exceeded the show cause notice and imposed punishment for offences for which no notice was given to the petitioner. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India and others ”, [(2010) 13 SCC 427]. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the liquor was duplicate and that the material referred to in conclusions no. (iv) a, b, c, d, and e did not form part of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner due to which the petitioner was taken by surprise and had no reasonable opportunity to defend the said allegations. He submitted that there was no report prepared and submitted to the petitioner, with regard to the said observations. He further submitted that Section 36 of the Act which provides for presumption, is not applicable to the present
