Provisional excise assessment and later duty recovery fall under the residuary rule, not the short-levy provision.

Where excise goods were cleared on provisional price lists against bonds pending later verification, the levy was treated as not finally assessed in law. The demand for differential duty therefore fell under the residuary recovery provision, Rule 10A, rather than Rule 10, which applies to short levy arising from error or misstatement in a completed assessment. On that basis, the later demand was held legally sustainable and within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for differential excise duty was governed by Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or by the residuary Rule 10A.

Analysis: The appellant had followed a practice of filing price lists for provisional clearance, executing bonds, and making payment on the basis of prices furnished in advance, with the correct duty to be verified later. The Court held that this was not a completed assessment in the legal sense, but only a mechanical adjustment pending verification. Since Rule 10 applies to cases of short levy caused by specified errors or misstatements in a completed levy, and Rule 10A applies where the Rules make no specific provision, the facts fell within Rule 10A. The Court approved the reasoning that the levy had not been finally assessed when the goods were cleared and that the later demand was therefore valid under the residuary rule.

Conclusion: Rule 10A applied and not Rule 10; the demand was within time and legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where clearance of goods is based only on price lists and a bond pending later verification, and no legal assessment has been completed, recovery of the shortfall falls under the residuary recovery provision and not under the special provision for short levy arising from misstatement or error in an assessed levy.

---