https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44432 The demand for differential excise duty failed because the Revenue did not produce material to show that the relevant assessments were provisional rather than final. The Court noted that the Revenue itself relied on Rule 10A, which required proof that the case fell outside Rule 10, but no such proof was adduced. As the record supported final assessments and the Tribunal's assumption of provisional assessment was not borne out, a remand was unwarranted and the demand could not be sustained on the basis advanced. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:48:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44432 The demand for differential excise duty failed because the Revenue did not produce material to show that the relevant assessments were provisional rather than final. The Court noted that the Revenue itself relied on Rule 10A, which required proof that the case fell outside Rule 10, but no such proof was adduced. As the record supported final assessments and the Tribunal's assumption of provisional assessment was not borne out, a remand was unwarranted and the demand could not be sustained on the basis advanced. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44432