Limitation on excise duty demands bars recovery of differential duty on losses covered by Rule 160 when raised late.

A duty demand on losses covered by Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unenforceable because it was raised beyond the limitation period under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J. The Tribunal noted that assessments made under Rule 173-I did not cure the delay or extend the permissible time for recovery. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside with consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential duty on the quantity treated as loss under Rule 160 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was barred by limitation and therefore unenforceable.

Analysis: The demand was raised in respect of losses falling within Rule 160, but the Tribunal held that the demand could not be sustained having regard to the limitation prescribed under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they then stood. The assessments under Rule 173-I did not alter the fact that the demand was made beyond the permissible time.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and unenforceable, and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside with consequential relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand arising from losses covered by Rule 160 cannot be enforced if it is raised beyond the limitation period applicable under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---