https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52014 Refund of the amount appropriated from an ad hoc deposit was admissible because recovery of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act requires a show-cause notice and adjudication before any demand for not levied, short-levied or short-paid duty can be enforced. No notice or adjudication order existed for the disputed component of value, so the appropriation letter could not be treated as a lawful demand order. The assessee was therefore not bound to separately appeal against a mere intimation of appropriation, especially where the deposit had been made ad hoc and under protest rather than against any adjudicated liability. en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52014 Refund of the amount appropriated from an ad hoc deposit was admissible because recovery of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act requires a show-cause notice and adjudication before any demand for not levied, short-levied or short-paid duty can be enforced. No notice or adjudication order existed for the disputed component of value, so the appropriation letter could not be treated as a lawful demand order. The assessee was therefore not bound to separately appeal against a mere intimation of appropriation, especially where the deposit had been made ad hoc and under protest rather than against any adjudicated liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52014