https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94696 Differential central excise duty could not be demanded for a past period merely because the classification list had not yet been approved. Clearances were not treated as provisional assessments in the absence of material showing compliance with Rule 9B procedure or payment on a provisional basis. Once the classification list and RT-12 returns had been assessed, a later notice could not be sustained as a short-levy demand on these facts. The demand was therefore held unsustainable and the appeal succeeded. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:19:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94696 Differential central excise duty could not be demanded for a past period merely because the classification list had not yet been approved. Clearances were not treated as provisional assessments in the absence of material showing compliance with Rule 9B procedure or payment on a provisional basis. Once the classification list and RT-12 returns had been assessed, a later notice could not be sustained as a short-levy demand on these facts. The demand was therefore held unsustainable and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94696