https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41709 Prior notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unnecessary where the competent authority had already finalised the assessee's RT-12 returns in its presence and treated the goods as woollen fabrics rather than baby blankets. In that situation, the demand for differential duty was valid because Rule 10 applies only where a lower assessment had earlier been made and later revised. A discrimination plea also failed: the comparison assessment concerned shoddy baby blankets on different facts, so parity could not be claimed from a separate quasi-judicial determination. The challenge to the excise demand was rejected. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:20:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41709 Prior notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unnecessary where the competent authority had already finalised the assessee's RT-12 returns in its presence and treated the goods as woollen fabrics rather than baby blankets. In that situation, the demand for differential duty was valid because Rule 10 applies only where a lower assessment had earlier been made and later revised. A discrimination plea also failed: the comparison assessment concerned shoddy baby blankets on different facts, so parity could not be claimed from a separate quasi-judicial determination. The challenge to the excise demand was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41709