Final RT-12 assessment limits recovery to prescribed machinery; fresh demand and penalty for unpaid duty were unsustainable.

Once duty is finally assessed on RT-12 returns, the department cannot start a fresh demand-cum-penalty proceeding under Section 11A and Rule 173Q merely because the assessed amount remains unpaid. The proper remedy is recovery through the prescribed machinery under Rule 230 or Section 11, not reopening the same assessed liability by a new adjudicatory action. Because the assessment itself was not under challenge, the later demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after duty stood assessed on RT-12 returns and remained unpaid, the revenue could initiate further proceedings under Section 11A and impose penalty under Rule 173Q, or whether recovery was confined to the prescribed recovery provisions.

Analysis: The duty had already been adjudged through the RT-12 assessment. In that situation, non-payment did not justify a fresh demand-cum-penalty proceeding on the same issue. The proper course for the department was to recover the assessed dues through the recovery machinery contemplated by Rule 230 or Section 11 of the Act, and not by invoking Section 11A again for the same assessed liability. Since the assessment itself was not under challenge before the appellate authority, the subsequent penal action was held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: The further proceedings for demand and penalty were not sustainable; the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the orders setting aside the demand and penalty were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Once duty has been finally assessed on RT-12, the department must resort to the prescribed recovery provisions for non-payment and cannot initiate a fresh penalty proceeding on the same assessed liability merely because the amount remains unpaid.

---