Excise rebate limitation: mere provisional wording did not establish provisional assessment, so the demand was time-barred.

A demand-cum-show-cause notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as time-barred where it was issued beyond six months and did not allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The rebate order's reference to provisional allowance did not amount to a provisional assessment in the legal sense, because the statutory conditions for provisional assessment under Rule 9B were not shown to exist. On that basis, the demand could not be saved by limitation or sustained as consequential proceedings, and the impugned demand and appellate orders were set aside with refund directed according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand-cum-show-cause notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was barred by limitation; and whether the rebate order dated 04.10.1978 was a provisional assessment so as to take the case outside the limitation under Rule 10.

Analysis: The notice did not allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts and was issued beyond six months from the refund order. The rebate order itself described the rebate as provisionally allowed only to a limited extent, but the surrounding terms did not amount to a provisional assessment in the legal sense. A provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires the recognised statutory conditions for provisional assessment, which were not shown to exist. The demand notice was therefore not saved by any claim of provisional assessment, and proceedings founded on such a notice could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand notice was time-barred and the consequential orders were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned demand and appellate orders were set aside, and refund was directed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for recovery of excise rebate issued beyond the prescribed period cannot be sustained unless the notice specifically invokes the statutory grounds for extension of limitation, and a mere reference to provisional treatment does not establish provisional assessment absent compliance with the governing rule.

---