Short-levy excise demands after assessment must proceed under the correct rule, not Rule 10-A.

A notice demanding additional excise duty after goods had been assessed and duty paid was held invalid when it proceeded under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The governing provision was Rule 10 because the demand sought to correct an earlier departmental misapprehension that had resulted in a lower levy after assessment and clearance. As Rule 10-A was inapplicable to such a short-levy situation, the demand notice could not be sustained and the quashing of the demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice demanding additional excise duty on goods already assessed and cleared was valid under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or whether the demand was governed by Rule 10 of those Rules.

Analysis: The demand sought to recover further duty after the goods had been assessed and duty had been paid, on the footing that the earlier levy was at a lower rate because of a departmental misapprehension. On that footing, the governing provision was Rule 10 and not Rule 10-A. Since Rule 10-A was inapplicable, the impugned demand notice could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The notice issued under Rule 10-A was invalid and the demand was rightly quashed. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for additional excise duty after assessment and payment, made to correct an earlier departmental mistake, is recoverable only under the provision governing short-levy or non-levy and not under Rule 10-A.

---