Final excise assessment and short-levy recovery must comply with limitation under Rule 10, making the demand time-barred.

Where excise assessments had attained finality, any subsequent demand for differential duty was treated as recovery of short-levied duty. Rule 173-J attracted the limitation period under Rule 10, so recovery had to be initiated within the prescribed time. On the facts noted, the duty had been paid in 1969 but the short levy was determined only in 1973, making the demand time-barred. Authorities' reliance on decisions involving non-final assessments or cases where Rule 173-J did not apply was held inapposite, and the levy could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under Rule 173-E and Rule 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, the demand for differential duty and penalty was barred by limitation in view of Rule 173-J read with Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The assessment memoranda showed that the returns filed for the relevant months had been accepted and the provisional assessment clause had been struck off, indicating a final assessment. Once the assessment was final, the amount demanded could only be treated as short-levied duty. During the relevant period Rule 173-J made the limitation under Rule 10 applicable to recovery of such short levy. The duty was paid in 1969, whereas the short levy was determined only in 1973, well beyond the prescribed period. The authorities' reliance on cases where no final assessment existed or where Rule 173-J was not attracted was held inapposite.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the levy could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded, and the impugned order was quashed for being beyond limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the excise assessment had attained finality and the relevant rule attracted the limitation under Rule 10 through Rule 173-J, recovery of short-levied duty had to be initiated within the prescribed period, failing which the demand was barred by time.

---