Final assessment under excise law requires prior price-list settlement, and demand provisions cannot be invoked prematurely.

In finalisation of provisional excise assessments, invoking Section 11A at the show-cause stage was held inappropriate because that demand provision applies only after assessment is finalised and a demand arises under the statute. The authority was required to first settle the price list under Rule 173C and then proceed with adjudication in accordance with law. Disparaging introductory observations in the Single Judge's order were also found unwarranted and were directed to be deleted. The writ appeal was thus allowed to that extent, with modification of the order and deletion of the impugned references.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reference to Section 11A in the show-cause notice was appropriate at the stage of final assessment; (ii) whether the adjudicating authority had to first settle the price list under Rule 173C before proceeding with adjudication; (iii) whether the observations made in the introductory paragraph of the Single Judge's order were justified.

Issue (i): Whether reference to Section 11A in the show-cause notice was appropriate at the stage of final assessment.

Analysis: The proceedings were concerned with finalisation of provisional assessments. On that footing, invocation of Section 11A was held to be misconceived because that provision becomes relevant only after assessment is finalised and a demand arises in the manner contemplated by the statute.

Conclusion: The reference to Section 11A in the show-cause notice was held inappropriate and impermissible, and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudicating authority had to first settle the price list under Rule 173C before proceeding with adjudication.

Analysis: The legal position under Rule 173C required settlement of the price list before final assessment. Since the notice related to final assessment, the authority was required to first consider and settle the price list filed by the appellant and only thereafter proceed to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The authority was directed to first settle the price list under Rule 173C and then continue with adjudication, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the observations made in the introductory paragraph of the Single Judge's order were justified.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant's stand had been accepted at earlier stages by the departmental authorities. In that context, the disparaging observations suggesting an attempt to delay proceedings were held unwarranted.

Conclusion: Those observations were ordered to be deleted, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying the Single Judge's order, removing the impugned observations, striking out the reference to Section 11A in the notices, and requiring prior settlement of the price list before adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for final assessment following provisional assessment, a demand provision applicable to escaped assessment cannot be invoked at the notice stage, and the price list must be settled before adjudication under the governing excise procedure.

---