Provisional assessment finalisation allows differential duty recovery without a fresh notice, while remand limits bind reassessment scope.

Finalisation of a provisional assessment under Rule 9B permits recovery of differential duty as an adjustment on completion of assessment, so a separate show cause notice under Section 11A is not required for that recovery. Where an earlier remand limits reconsideration to re-calculation on the basis of classification already settled by the appellate forum, the assessing authority must confine itself to that scope and cannot reopen the classification issue. The reassessment made within those remand directions was therefore treated as valid, and the challenge to the demand failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a separate show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was required for recovery of the differential duty; (ii) whether the assessing authority could finalise the assessment and confirm duty in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier remand directions and the classification already settled therein.

Issue (i): whether, on finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a separate show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was required for recovery of the differential duty.

Analysis: The assessment remained provisional until finalisation, and a provisional assessment retains that character for all purposes. The differential duty arose only upon adjustment after final assessment. In such a situation, the recovery is a consequence of finalising the provisional assessment and not a separate short-levy proceeding requiring a fresh notice under Section 11A. The Court also noted that the demand confirmed was lower than the amount mentioned in the notice issued for finalisation.

Conclusion: No separate notice under Section 11A was required, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the assessing authority could finalise the assessment and confirm duty in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier remand directions and the classification already settled therein.

Analysis: The earlier remand had limited the exercise to re-calculation of duty on the basis of the classification already determined by the Tribunal. The lower authority was bound by that classification and had no power to reopen it. The final reassessment was carried out within the scope of those directions, and the appellant had already been heard on the classification issue in the earlier round.

Conclusion: The reassessment and confirmation of duty in accordance with the earlier remand were valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive grounds and the impugned order was sustained, resulting in rejection of the assessee's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of differential duty arising on finalisation of a provisional assessment under Rule 9B is not a proceeding under Section 11A, and the lower authority must act within the confines of the remand directions and the classification already settled by the appellate forum.

---