Provisional excise assessment and limitation for short-levied duty cannot be stretched beyond the specific rule and time bar.

Provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 must be strictly established by a manufacturer's request, the existence of alternative bases of assessment, and the requisite bond; later endorsement of forms or a subsequent bond did not make the original assessments provisional. For short-levied duty, Rule 10 applied as the specific recovery provision and required a written demand within three months of payment or account-current adjustment. Rule 10A could not be used as a residuary route to avoid that limitation. The demand notices were therefore time-barred and liable to be quashed, with consequential writ relief available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the excise assessments could be treated as provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) Whether the demand for differential duty was sustainable under Rule 10A or was barred by the limitation in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the excise assessments could be treated as provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 9B applies only where the manufacturer requests provisional assessment in cases involving two or more alternative bases of assessment, pending complete information or tests, and the manufacturer executes the requisite bond for payment of any difference on final assessment. The materials did not show any such request or any factual foundation bringing the assessments within that rule. The later attempt to mark the A.R. 1 forms as provisional and the reliance on a bond executed later did not establish that the original assessments had in fact been provisional.

Conclusion: The assessments were not shown to be provisional under Rule 9B, and the demand could not be upheld on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for differential duty was sustainable under Rule 10A or was barred by the limitation in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Where duty has been short-levied because of the value stated by the owner, the matter falls within Rule 10, which permits recovery only on written demand made within three months from the date of payment or adjustment in the account current. Rule 10A is only a residuary provision and cannot be used to bypass the specific limitation in Rule 10. Since the demand was issued beyond three months from the relevant adjustments, it was time-barred.

Conclusion: The demand was governed by Rule 10 and was barred by limitation; Rule 10A did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The demand notices were liable to be quashed and the respondents could not give effect to them; the petitioner was entitled to consequential writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific recovery provision with its own limitation period governs recovery of short-levied duty, and a residuary recovery rule cannot be invoked to defeat that limitation; provisional assessment must be established strictly by the conditions prescribed in the rule.

---