Excise demand can be reissued after withdrawal, but Rule 9(2) and Rule 10-A cannot fill a missing statutory basis.

A prior withdrawal of an excise demand does not bar a fresh demand where the earlier order only corrected the rate applicable under a notification and did not decide that the goods were wholly non-dutiable. The note also explains that Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applies only to removal of goods in contravention of Rule 9(1); if the time, place and manner of payment were never fixed under Rule 9(1), that basis is unavailable. Rule 10-A cannot be used to sustain recovery where the statutory foundation for the demand is otherwise missing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order withdrawing the demand barred the Department from issuing fresh demands for the same goods and period; (ii) Whether the impugned excise demands could be sustained under Rule 9(2) or Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order withdrawing the demand barred the Department from issuing fresh demands for the same goods and period.

Analysis: The earlier order did not hold that the goods were not liable to excise duty at all. It only found that the demand had been raised without taking note of the concessional rate under the relevant notification. Such an order did not preclude the Department from issuing a fresh demand in accordance with the statutory provisions and notifications.

Conclusion: Fresh demands were not barred by the earlier withdrawal order.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned excise demands could be sustained under Rule 9(2) or Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 9(2) applies only where goods are removed in contravention of Rule 9(1). Where the authorities have not fixed the time, place and manner of payment of duty as contemplated by Rule 9(1), there is no such contravention. The record also showed that the goods had not been subjected to duty earlier, and the demand for the later period could not be justified under Rule 10-A in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, neither rule furnished a valid basis for the demands.

Conclusion: The impugned demands were not sustainable under Rule 9(2) or Rule 10-A.

Final Conclusion: The excise duty demands were quashed and the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An excise demand cannot be sustained under Rule 9(2) unless there is removal in contravention of Rule 9(1), and Rule 10-A cannot be invoked to validate a demand where the statutory basis for recovery is otherwise absent.

---