Withdrawal of excise set-off and short-levy recovery upheld after final refusal of retrospective credit.

Withdrawal of the set-off under the amended excise notification meant the appellants could not claim proforma credit for the past period, especially as retrospective permission had already been refused and that refusal had attained finality. The subsequent demand of duty was also held maintainable because the amendment came to light only after approval of the classification list, resulting in a short-levy recoverable under the short-levy provision within the permissible period. The challenge that approval of the classification list barred the demand was rejected, and the duty demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the past period after the amendment of Notification No. 226/77-Central Excises dated 15.07.1977. (ii) Whether the demand of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable after approval of the classification list.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the past period after the amendment of Notification No. 226/77-Central Excises dated 15.07.1977.

Analysis: The benefit of set-off under the unamended notification had been withdrawn by Notification No. 111/80 dated 19.06.1980. The request for retrospective permission under Rule 56A had already been refused by the Collector and that refusal had been affirmed by the Tribunal. The earlier Tribunal order had attained finality and the question could not be reopened in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to proforma credit for the past period, and the claim was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable after approval of the classification list.

Analysis: The amendment withdrawing the set-off came to light after approval of the classification list, and the omission to notice the amendment meant the goods had been short-levied. Section 11A authorises recovery of short-levied duty, and the demand was confined to the six-month period upheld by the lower authority. The plea that the Assistant Collector could not raise the demand after approving the classification list was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The demand under Section 11A was maintainable and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the duty demand was sustained, with no entitlement to retrospective proforma credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory benefit has been withdrawn by amendment and retrospective credit has already been refused in final proceedings, the claim cannot be reopened in a later appeal, and short-levy discovered after approval of a classification list can be recovered under the short-levy provision within the permissible period.

---