Provisional assessment under excise rules requires strict compliance; absent proof, the normal limitation period applies and the demand fails.

Excise duty demand could not be treated as arising from provisional assessment because the statutory requirements under Rule 9B were not shown to have been complied with. The Court found no valid order for provisional assessment, no material showing clearance on that basis, and no proof that duty was paid pursuant to such provisional classification. As a result, the department could not bypass the normal limitation period for issuing the demand, and the demand was held time-barred. The writ petition succeeded and the impugned demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised by the department was barred by limitation in the absence of compliance with Rule 9B governing provisional assessment.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the demand on the footing that the assessment was not shown to have been made on a provisional basis in the manner required by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court accepted the principle that, to treat clearances as provisional, there must be an order under Rule 9B, material showing clearance on that basis, and payment of duty pursuant to such provisional classification. On the facts, those conditions were not established. In the absence of proof of a valid provisional assessment, the department could not avoid the normal limitation bar for issuing the demand.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded with the adverse order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for excise duty cannot be treated as arising from provisional assessment unless the statutory requirements for provisional assessment are shown to have been complied with; failing that, the ordinary limitation period applies.

---