Provisional assessment demands are not barred for lack of separate notice, but duty must be re-quantified after lawful deductions.

Where duty demand arises from finalisation of a provisional assessment, it is not vitiated for want of a separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the demand follows the approved provisional assessment machinery and is not treated as a barred short-levy demand in that context. The valuation, however, must still reflect all admissible deductions under Section 4; if such deductions were not considered, the demand requires re-quantification to that extent. The limitation challenge therefore fails, but the duty computation is corrected by allowing lawful deductions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and required a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when it arose from finalisation of assessment under the provisional assessment procedure. (ii) Whether the duty demand had to be re-quantified after allowing admissible deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and required a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when it arose from finalisation of assessment under the provisional assessment procedure.

Analysis: The classification list had been ordered to be provisional, and the assessee was directed to comply with the bond requirement under the provisional assessment procedure. The demand followed finalisation of the assessment and was consequential to the approved classification and assessment machinery. In such a situation, the statutory notice provision governing short-levy demands after final assessment was not attracted as a condition precedent.

Conclusion: The demand was not vitiated by limitation and did not fail for want of a notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand had to be re-quantified after allowing admissible deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The claim regarding non-grant of admissible deductions had not been examined by the appellate authority. Since such deductions were legally relevant to the quantification of duty, the demand required correction to that extent.

Conclusion: The duty demand had to be re-quantified after granting admissible deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to limitation failed, but the matter was sent back only for limited re-quantification of the duty demand after allowing lawful deductions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a duty demand arises as a consequence of finalisation of a provisional assessment, it is not defeated for absence of a separate notice under Section 11A, but quantification must still reflect all admissible deductions required by the charging valuation provision.

---