https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240613 Excess excise duty paid on some clearances could not be automatically adjusted against short-paid duty on other clearances because the liabilities arose from separate clearances and the assessments were not provisional; the proper remedy for excess payment was refund, not set-off. Where differential duty was later demanded on valuation, the assessee remained entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 53/2001-C.E. (N.T.) already available on the original clearances, so the demand had to be recomputed after that benefit. The extended limitation period and penalty were not sustainable in the absence of mala fide intent to evade duty, and recomputation was directed within the normal limitation period with no penalty surviving. en-us Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:23:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240613 Excess excise duty paid on some clearances could not be automatically adjusted against short-paid duty on other clearances because the liabilities arose from separate clearances and the assessments were not provisional; the proper remedy for excess payment was refund, not set-off. Where differential duty was later demanded on valuation, the assessee remained entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 53/2001-C.E. (N.T.) already available on the original clearances, so the demand had to be recomputed after that benefit. The extended limitation period and penalty were not sustainable in the absence of mala fide intent to evade duty, and recomputation was directed within the normal limitation period with no penalty surviving. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240613