Provisional assessment allowed duty demand on ABS waste at finalisation despite no separate quantified notice.

In provisional assessment, final duty liability may be determined at finalisation even without a separate quantified notice, where the assessee was aware that the goods and exemption claim were in dispute. The notices, read with the provisional assessment order, were sufficient to cover denial of the exemption and the duty consequence on ABS waste used in manufacture of exempted reprocessed granules. The authority was therefore competent to assess and recover duty on the waste at finalisation, and the objection based on the absence of a separate quantified show cause notice failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded on ABS waste at the stage of finalisation of provisional assessment, even though the show cause notices had primarily proposed demand on reprocessed granules and did not separately quantify duty on the waste.

Analysis: The assessments had been made provisionally, and the final liability was being determined on finalisation. In that setting, the absence of a separate quantified demand notice on ABS waste did not invalidate the demand, because the assessee was aware throughout that duty liability on waste was in dispute and the final assessment empowered the authority to determine liability on the goods covered by the provisional order. The notices, read with the provisional assessment order, sufficiently covered denial of the relevant exemptions and the consequent duty consequence on the waste used in manufacture of exempted reprocessed granules. The authorities below were therefore competent to determine and recover duty on the waste at finalisation.

Conclusion: The demand on ABS waste was valid and the objection based on absence of a separate quantified show cause notice failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of provisional assessment, final duty liability may be determined at finalisation even without a separate quantified show cause notice, provided the assessee was on notice that the goods and the exemption claim were under dispute.

---