Concessional clearance under a self-contained scheme requires strict accountal, and general limitation was not imported for recovery.

A tentative statement in a show cause notice that no evidence existed of leakage did not vitiate the notice, because liability was not finally prejudged and the consignee had full opportunity to explain the shortage. The majority held that the Chapter X and Rule 196 concessional-clearance scheme was self-contained, so the general six-month limitation under Section 11A was not automatically imported and the demand was not time-barred; one member dissented on limitation. The shortage was not treated as duly accounted for, because Rule 196 required proof of loss by natural causes or unavoidable accident, and mere non-receipt or unexplained shortage did not satisfy that standard, leaving duty payable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the show cause notice was invalid for allegedly pre-judging the reason for shortage of raw naphtha; (ii) whether the demand under Rule 196 was barred by limitation under Section 11A; and (iii) whether the shortage could be treated as accounted for, or as loss covered by Rule 196.

Issue (i): whether the show cause notice was invalid for allegedly pre-judging the reason for shortage of raw naphtha

Analysis: The notice stated only that, on the material then available, there appeared to be no evidence that the loss was due to leakage. It did not finally determine liability and the appellants were given full opportunity to explain the shortage and establish accountal under the applicable procedure. A tentative observation in the notice did not cause legal prejudice.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was valid and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the demand under Rule 196 was barred by limitation under Section 11A

Analysis: Chapter X and Rule 196 were treated as a self-contained scheme for concessional clearance subject to accountal of goods and payment of duty if the goods were not duly accounted for. The majority held that importing Section 11A limitation into this scheme would defeat its object, and that the demand could be made without being confined to the six-month period. The dissenting member held that where the demand was pursued under the Act, Section 11A applied and the demand was time-barred.

Conclusion: By majority, the demand was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether the shortage could be treated as accounted for, or as loss covered by Rule 196

Analysis: Rule 196 was construed to require proof that the goods were lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident during transit, handling, or storage. Mere non-receipt of the goods at the consignee's end did not by itself amount to due accountal. On the facts, no satisfactory proof of a qualifying loss was shown, and any negligence in dispatch or carriage did not bring the case within the protected contingencies of the rule.

Conclusion: The shortage was not treated as duly accounted for and duty remained payable.

Final Conclusion: The concessional clearance scheme was held to be enforceable against the consignee for unaccounted shortage, the notice was upheld, and the revenue demand survived, with one member dissenting only on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concessional removal of excisable goods is governed by a special self-contained procedure requiring accountal of goods, the specific recovery mechanism under that procedure applies and general limitation under Section 11A is not automatically imported unless the scheme so provides; loss is excused only when proved to fall within the qualifying contingencies in the rule.

---