Duty demand beyond the show cause notice was impermissible; provisional assessment required Rule 9B(5) procedure.

Duty demand could not be confirmed above the amount stated in the show cause notice and corrigendum, because Section 11A(2) limits determination to the duty made known to the assessee in the notice served. The corrigendum reducing the demand was treated as effective, so a later higher confirmation was impermissible. Where the department sought finalisation of provisional assessment, the prescribed procedure under Rule 9B(5) had to be followed, including a proper notice under that rule. The adjudicating authority could not convert the proceedings to justify a higher demand than the assessee had been put on notice of, and the excess demand was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand could be confirmed for an amount higher than that stated in the show cause notice and corrigendum, and whether proceedings for finalisation of provisional assessment could be sustained without following the procedure under Rule 9B(5).

Analysis: The corrigendum reducing the demand was treated as deliberate and effective, and the later confirmation of a higher amount was held impermissible. Under Section 11A(2), the proper officer cannot determine duty in excess of the amount made known in the notice served on the assessee. If the department intended to finalise provisional assessment, the prescribed procedure under Rule 9B(5) had to be followed and a proper notice issued under that provision. The adjudicating authority could not convert the proceedings to justify a higher demand than what the assessee had been put to notice of.

Conclusion: The demand beyond the amount stated in the notice and corrigendum was not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded.

---