Final assessment evidence controls differential duty demand where Revenue fails to prove provisional assessment status.

The demand for differential excise duty failed because the Revenue did not produce material to show that the relevant assessments were provisional rather than final. The Court noted that the Revenue itself relied on Rule 10A, which required proof that the case fell outside Rule 10, but no such proof was adduced. As the record supported final assessments and the Tribunal's assumption of provisional assessment was not borne out, a remand was unwarranted and the demand could not be sustained on the basis advanced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessments for the relevant months were final assessments or provisional assessments, and whether the demand for differential duty could be sustained under Rule 10 or Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the character of the assessments made for the period in question. The Revenue itself indicated that it was not relying on Rule 10 but on Rule 10A, which required material to show that the assessments fell outside Rule 10 and within Rule 10A. No such material was produced. The record suggested that the action had proceeded on the basis of final assessments, and the Tribunal's assumption of provisional assessment was not supported by the materials before the Court. In these circumstances, a remand was found unwarranted.

Conclusion: The assessments were treated as final assessments, the demand could not be sustained on the basis urged by the Revenue, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue seeks to sustain a duty demand by invoking a provision applicable to a different assessment character, it must adduce material to establish that character; absent such proof, the demand cannot be upheld.

---