Statutory machinery for section 11D recovery required before quantification and payment could be ordered.

In the absence of statutory machinery for adjudication and quantification, the Commissioner could not himself determine the amount allegedly payable under section 11D or direct its credit to the Government. The liability under section 11D was not extinguished, but enforcement of that liability had to follow proper adjudication in accordance with law. The decision concerned recovery of the difference between duty collected on levy sugar and duty actually paid, and it confined the Commissioner's role by holding that quantification and direction for payment were impermissible until the legal mechanism was in place.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of any statutory machinery, the Commissioner could quantify the amount alleged to be payable under section 11D and direct it to be credited to the Government.

Analysis: The appeal concerned recovery of the difference between duty collected on levy sugar and the duty actually paid. It was held that, until the law provided the requisite machinery for adjudication and quantification of such claims under section 11D, the Commissioner could not himself quantify the amount and order its credit to the Government. The liability under section 11D was preserved, but its enforcement had to await adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to quantify the duty and direct payment to the Government in the absence of statutory machinery; the appeal was allowed.

---