Provisional assessments and limitation on differential duty demand: finalisation delay alone did not make the demand time-barred.

Assessments were treated as provisional in fact and law because the returns were endorsed and dealt with as provisional, even though the appellants had not executed the required bond. The later demand for differential duty raised after finalisation was not barred by limitation, as the record did not show that it was issued beyond six months from the final adjustment. Delay in completing the finalisation process, by itself, did not render the demand time-barred. The demand was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessments were provisional and whether the demand for differential duty raised after finalisation was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellants had been asked to execute a bond for provisional assessment but did not do so, and the returns were nevertheless endorsed and treated as provisional. On that basis, the assessments were held to be provisional in fact and in law. After finalisation of the provisional assessments, there was delay in raising the demand, but the record did not show that the demand had been raised beyond six months from final adjustment. The delay in finalising the matter did not by itself make the demand time-barred.

Conclusion: The assessments were correctly treated as provisional, and the demand for differential duty was not hit by limitation. The appeal failed.

---