https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166183 Differential excise duty could not be sustained where the department altered classification without enquiry, reasons, or a fair hearing, and no provisional assessment was shown. The Tribunal found the invocation of Rule 10A unnecessary on the record and held that the demand failed on that footing. On classification, the industrial tractor hauler was accepted as an industrial tractor falling under Tariff Item 34(3a), later Tariff Item 34-II, and not Tariff Item 34(4). The consequential demand for differential duty was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 22 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:44:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166183 Differential excise duty could not be sustained where the department altered classification without enquiry, reasons, or a fair hearing, and no provisional assessment was shown. The Tribunal found the invocation of Rule 10A unnecessary on the record and held that the demand failed on that footing. On classification, the industrial tractor hauler was accepted as an industrial tractor falling under Tariff Item 34(3a), later Tariff Item 34-II, and not Tariff Item 34(4). The consequential demand for differential duty was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166183