Short-levy demands must use the specific limitation rule, and reassessment needs affirmative proof of original non-levy.

A demand arising from an alleged misstatement in clearance particulars is governed by the specific short-levy provision rather than the residuary recovery rule, so limitation under the specific rule applies and a delayed demand is time-barred. Reassessment is sustainable only if the Revenue produces affirmative material showing that duty was not originally levied; suspicion or presumption is insufficient. On the record described, the authorities relied on assumptions and did not discharge that burden, so the finding of escaped duty could not stand and the assessee's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for alleged short levy was governed by Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and consequently barred by limitation, or by the residuary Rule 10A. (ii) Whether there was material to sustain the finding that duty had not been levied on the wrapping paper when the goods were originally cleared.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for alleged short levy was governed by Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and consequently barred by limitation, or by the residuary Rule 10A.

Analysis: The demand arose from the department's case that the assessee had under-declared the weight of reams by excluding the wrapping paper. A short levy caused by such a misstatement falls within Rule 10, which governs recovery of duties short-levied for the specified reasons, including misstatement as to quantity. Rule 10A is only residuary and is excluded where Rule 10 specifically applies. Since the notices were issued long after the relevant periods, the demand for the earlier period was beyond the prescribed time, and even the later notice was out of time for the portion relating to October 1969.

Conclusion: The demand was governed by Rule 10 and the recovery for the earlier period was time-barred against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether there was material to sustain the finding that duty had not been levied on the wrapping paper when the goods were originally cleared.

Analysis: Reopening an assessment required affirmative material showing short levy for one of the reasons specified in Rule 10. The record showed periodic test checks, statements comparing nominal and actual weights over a long period, and the Indian Standards Institution specification requiring the marked weight per ream to include wrapping paper. The Appellate Collector had accepted that the overall data did not show escapement of duty, whereas the revisional authority relied on assumptions and ignored the contrary material. The burden lay on the Revenue to establish original non-levy, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: There was no reliable material to support the conclusion that duty on the wrapping paper had escaped assessment, and the Revenue's finding could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable, the assessee's challenge succeeded, and the appellate order in its favour was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a demand for duty arises from an alleged misstatement in clearance particulars, the case is governed by the specific short-levy provision and not the residuary recovery power, and any reassessment can stand only on affirmative material proving original short levy; suspicion or presumption is insufficient.

---