Change in classification opinion does not justify past-period duty recovery; revised assessment applies only prospectively from the trade notice date.

A departmental reassessment based only on a revised classification view, without discovery of new facts or a true short levy, does not support recovery of differential duty for the past period under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The earlier demand was therefore outside the scope of the short-levy provision and the notice dated 1-4-1978 was not a valid demand notice for antecedent recovery. However, the revised classification at crude rate was accepted prospectively from 7-2-1978, so the reassessment operated only from the trade notice date onward.

---

---

Issues: Whether the differential duty demanded for the past period was recoverable under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the reassessment could operate only prospectively from the trade notice date.

Analysis: The earlier assessments of aluminium foil scrap had changed repeatedly on departmental directions, and the later trade notice merely reflected a fresh classification view without discovery of new facts. On those facts, the demand for the past period did not arise from any true short levy, but from a change of opinion on classification. The notice dated 1-4-1978 was not a valid demand notice, and the demand raised for the earlier period was held to be outside the scope of Rule 10. At the same time, the classification at crude rate from 7-2-1978, after the public notice, was accepted as proper prospectively.

Conclusion: The past-period demand was not recoverable under Rule 10 and was set aside, but the reassessment at crude rate from 7-2-1978 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: Recovery for the antecedent period failed, while the revised assessment was sustained only from the date of the trade notice onward.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental reassessment based only on a change of classification opinion, without a true short levy, does not support recovery for the past period under the limitation provisions governing short-levy demands.

---