Provisional central excise assessments supported by surrounding conduct prevented a limitation challenge to differential duty demand.

Assessments for the relevant period were treated as provisional because the surrounding correspondence, the manner of duty payment at clearance, and unresolved disputes over abatements showed that finality had not been reached. The absence of a formal rule 9B order, bond, or endorsement in the return or price list did not by itself make the assessments final where the practical circumstances pointed the other way. On that basis, the differential duty demand was not defeated by limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessments for the relevant period were provisional and, if so, whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appellant's challenge proceeded on the footing that, absent an express order under rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a bond, and an endorsement in the return or price list, the assessments must be treated as final. The Tribunal held that the surrounding correspondence, the manner in which duty was being discharged at the time of clearance, and the pending disputes regarding abatements showed that the assessments were not finally concluded. It further held that the absence of the formal incidents relied on by the appellant did not, by itself, negate provisional assessment where the circumstances showed that finality had not been reached. On that basis, the demand could not be defeated by invoking limitation.

Conclusion: The assessments were treated as provisional, and the demand was held not to be barred by limitation.

---