https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368549 Assessments for the relevant period were treated as provisional because the surrounding correspondence, the manner of duty payment at clearance, and unresolved disputes over abatements showed that finality had not been reached. The absence of a formal rule 9B order, bond, or endorsement in the return or price list did not by itself make the assessments final where the practical circumstances pointed the other way. On that basis, the differential duty demand was not defeated by limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2020 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368549 Assessments for the relevant period were treated as provisional because the surrounding correspondence, the manner of duty payment at clearance, and unresolved disputes over abatements showed that finality had not been reached. The absence of a formal rule 9B order, bond, or endorsement in the return or price list did not by itself make the assessments final where the practical circumstances pointed the other way. On that basis, the differential duty demand was not defeated by limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368549