https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98976 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. en-us Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:19:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98976 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98976