Limitation in central excise turns on valid provisional assessment; later directions cannot revive time-barred duty demands.

Central excise demand was treated as time-barred because the clearances could not be regarded as provisionally assessed under Rule 9B: the classification lists were approved without marking them provisional, no bond was executed, and the department was already aware of the manufacturing activity and the dispute over Notification No. 80/80. A later direction could not retrospectively convert past clearances into provisional assessments. The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) and Rule 9(2) was also unavailable, as mere short levy or short payment did not by itself establish suppression, evasion, or intentional contravention to evade duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was barred by limitation and whether the extended time limit could be invoked on the footing that the clearances had been provisionally assessed under Rule 9B.

Analysis: The classification lists had been approved without showing the approvals to be provisional, and no bond had been executed as required for provisional assessment. The correspondence showed that the department was aware of the manufacturing activity, clearances, and the respondents' entitlement dispute under Notification No. 80/80. Past clearances could not, in law, be treated as provisionally assessed merely by a later direction. In these circumstances, the demand raised for clearances effected prior to the relevant date was time-barred. The record also did not justify invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(1) or Rule 9(2), since mere short levy or short payment did not by itself establish evasion or intentional contravention to evade duty.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was not available; the assessee succeeded.

---