Rule 57AD recovery barred without machinery provision, with CESTAT following earlier ratio in favour of the assessee.

In the absence of machinery provisions comparable to Rule 57CC, duty could not be recovered as such under Rule 57AD. The CESTAT followed its earlier ratio on the same point and held that recovery was not permissible on the facts considered, resulting in a decision in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be recovered under Rule 57AD where no machinery provision similar to Rule 57CC existed.

Analysis: The issue had already been considered by the same bench in earlier decisions. It was accepted that, in the absence of machinery provisions comparable to Rule 57CC, the amount as such could not be recovered under Rule 57AD. The present matter was decided by following that earlier ratio.

Conclusion: Recovery of duty under Rule 57AD was not permissible on the facts considered, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---