Limitation in central excise demand: absence of suppression and unallowed provisional assessment left the demand time barred.

Central excise demand was treated as time barred because the department did not prove suppression, intent to evade duty, or any other basis to extend limitation. The assessee had filed revised price lists, and the delay in doing so was not enough by itself to establish evasion. The allegation of non-furnishing of invoices was also unsubstantiated. Although provisional assessment under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was sought, it was not granted, and the record did not show that the assessments remained open. The departmental appeal therefore failed and the Collector (Appeals) order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation and whether the circumstances justified treating the clearances as provisional assessments.

Analysis: The respondent had filed the revised price lists voluntarily, though belatedly, and the delay in filing by itself was held not to establish an intent to evade duty. The allegation of non-furnishing of invoices was not substantiated by the department. The record also showed that the respondent had sought provisional assessment under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but that request was not granted. In these circumstances, the department failed to show that the assessments were kept open or that the demand could escape the bar of limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time barred and the departmental appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Collector (Appeals) was sustained, and the excise demand was not recoverable in the present appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department does not establish suppression or any legally sustainable basis for extending limitation, and provisional assessment was sought but not allowed, the demand cannot be saved from being time barred.

---