Short-levied excise duty demands require timely show cause notice; departmental endorsements cannot replace mandatory statutory .

A demand for short-levied excise duty could not be sustained where the RT-12 endorsements and departmental letters were not preceded by a proper show cause notice, and the later notice was issued after the six-month limitation period without allegations justifying any extended period. Departmental assessment entries and reminders could not replace the mandatory statutory notice and adjudication required to enforce the demand. On that basis, the demand was held unenforceable in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand for excise duty could be sustained when the RT-12 endorsements and letters were not preceded by a proper show cause notice and the formal notice issued later was beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

Analysis: The demand arose from the computation of the exemption limit under the relevant exemption notification and was first reflected in the RT-12 assessments and departmental letters. However, a demand for short-levied duty had to be made through a proper show cause notice followed by adjudication, and the earlier endorsements or reminders could not substitute for that statutory requirement. The later notice under Rule 10 was issued after the six-month period and contained no allegation supporting the extended period of limitation. The demand was therefore not saved by the prior correspondence or by the departmental assessment entries.

Conclusion: The demand was unenforceable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for short-levied excise duty must be founded on a proper show cause notice issued within limitation, and departmental entries or letters cannot replace that mandatory statutory .

---