Rule 10 short-levy demand failed where no statutory precondition or supporting record established the alleged recovery basis.

Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied only where short-levy resulted from inadvertence, error, collusion, misconstruction, or misstatement as to quantity, description or value. The Court found that the materials did not establish any such precondition; the departmental affidavit offered only conjecture and no supporting record showed a Rule 10 circumstance. It also noted that the 1971 notification operated prospectively and no basis was shown to treat the later notice as a valid Rule 10 demand for the period in question. The notice and recovery proceedings were therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was validly attracted on the facts of the case and whether the recovery proceedings could be sustained.

Analysis: Rule 10 applies only where duties have been short-levied through inadvertence, error, collusion or misconstruction on the part of an officer, or through misstatement as to quantity, description or value on the part of the owner. The materials before the Court did not establish that the necessary preconditions existed. The departmental affidavit relied on conjectural explanations and no supporting record was produced to show that the short-levy arose from any circumstance contemplated by the rule. The Court also noted that the notification issued in 1971 governed the position prospectively and that no basis had been shown for treating the later notice as a valid Rule 10 demand for the period in question.

Conclusion: Rule 10 was not attracted, and the notice and recovery proceedings could not be sustained.

---