Limitation for differential duty notice fails where assessment was already finalised and the notice was also premature on the facts.

A show cause notice demanding differential duty was found unsustainable where the assessment had already been finalised by the Assistant Commissioner and the assessee had acted on that finalised price list during the relevant clearance period. The later appellate direction to include JPC Cess did not amount to any further effective finalisation before the notice was issued, so the notice was treated as belated. On the assessee's alternative factual basis, the notice was also premature because it preceded RT-12 finalisation. The plea that Section 11A did not apply was rejected, and the Supreme Court ruling cited was applied against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice demanding differential duty was barred by limitation or premature in the context of provisional assessment and subsequent finalisation of the price list and RT-12 returns.

Analysis: The assessment was initially finalised by the Assistant Commissioner, and the assessee acted on that finalised price list during the relevant clearance period. The later appellate order directing inclusion of JPC Cess did not show any further effective finalisation before issuance of the show cause notice. The notice was issued long after the initial finalisation and, on the alternative footing adopted by the assessee, even before the RT-12 finalisation. In these circumstances, the notice was treated as belated and, on the facts, premature. The plea that Section 11A did not apply to the Revenue in such a situation was rejected, and the reasoning in the cited Supreme Court decision was applied equally against the Revenue.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be unsustainable because the show cause notice was barred by limitation and, on the alternative computation, premature; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---