Provisional assessment and duty adjustment failed where no valid bond was executed; excess duty required refund, not set-off.

Excess duty paid on a higher assessable value could not be adjusted against short-paid duty on consignments cleared through agents because the provisional assessment never became valid: although provisional assessment had been ordered, the required bond was not executed. In that , the excess payment had to be claimed by refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and could not be netted off against the demand. The short-paid duty remained recoverable under Section 11A, and the adjustment claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of valid provisional assessment, excess duty paid on a higher assessable value could be adjusted against duty short-paid on clearance through consignment agents, instead of being refunded under the prescribed refund mechanism.

Analysis: The appellant's claim for adjustment depended on provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The record showed that provisional assessment had been ordered, but the appellant did not execute the required bond and, therefore, the assessment did not operate as a valid provisional assessment. In that situation, the excess duty paid on the higher assessable value could not be netted off against the demand for short-payment. The proper course for excess payment was refund in accordance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the demand for short-paid duty was sustainable under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The claim for adjustment was rejected and the demand of duty was upheld.

---