https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74257 Central excise demand was treated as time-barred because the clearances could not be regarded as provisionally assessed under Rule 9B: the classification lists were approved without marking them provisional, no bond was executed, and the department was already aware of the manufacturing activity and the dispute over Notification No. 80/80. A later direction could not retrospectively convert past clearances into provisional assessments. The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) and Rule 9(2) was also unavailable, as mere short levy or short payment did not by itself establish suppression, evasion, or intentional contravention to evade duty. en-us Fri, 24 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:37:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74257 Central excise demand was treated as time-barred because the clearances could not be regarded as provisionally assessed under Rule 9B: the classification lists were approved without marking them provisional, no bond was executed, and the department was already aware of the manufacturing activity and the dispute over Notification No. 80/80. A later direction could not retrospectively convert past clearances into provisional assessments. The extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) and Rule 9(2) was also unavailable, as mere short levy or short payment did not by itself establish suppression, evasion, or intentional contravention to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74257