https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74333 A tentative statement in a show cause notice that no evidence existed of leakage did not vitiate the notice, because liability was not finally prejudged and the consignee had full opportunity to explain the shortage. The majority held that the Chapter X and Rule 196 concessional-clearance scheme was self-contained, so the general six-month limitation under Section 11A was not automatically imported and the demand was not time-barred; one member dissented on limitation. The shortage was not treated as duly accounted for, because Rule 196 required proof of loss by natural causes or unavoidable accident, and mere non-receipt or unexplained shortage did not satisfy that standard, leaving duty payable. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:12:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74333 A tentative statement in a show cause notice that no evidence existed of leakage did not vitiate the notice, because liability was not finally prejudged and the consignee had full opportunity to explain the shortage. The majority held that the Chapter X and Rule 196 concessional-clearance scheme was self-contained, so the general six-month limitation under Section 11A was not automatically imported and the demand was not time-barred; one member dissented on limitation. The shortage was not treated as duly accounted for, because Rule 196 required proof of loss by natural causes or unavoidable accident, and mere non-receipt or unexplained shortage did not satisfy that standard, leaving duty payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74333