2006 (2) TMI 563 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of appellant's name in the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal.
2. Demand of duty under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. for non-compliance with production quantity.
3. Provisional assessment of RT-12 Returns and the issue of limitation for demand notices.

Analysis:
1. The judgment allowed the Department's application to change the appellant's name in the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal.

2. The case involved the demand of duty against the respondents for not meeting the prescribed quantity of cement production under Notification No. 124/87-C.E. The Department issued show-cause notices for the months of Oct.'87 and Mar.'88. The original authority confirmed the duty demand, but the first appellate authority reversed the decision, citing the demand notices as time-barred. The Department's appeal was based on the argument that the assessments were provisional, and the notices were issued within the 6-month limitation period. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in Metal Forgings v. Union of India clarified that a specific order under Rule 9B was required for provisional assessment. The absence of such an order indicated final assessments, making the demand notices time-barred.

3. The analysis considered the submissions from both sides. The Supreme Court's precedent in Metal Forgings emphasized the necessity of a specific order for provisional assessment under Rule 9B. The appellant failed to provide evidence of such an order, and the date of final assessment was not presented. Additionally, Circular No. 13/90-CX. 6 dated 25-5-1990 directed provisional assessments to be made under a specific order, as endorsed by the apex court in Metal Forgings. The Revenue's failure to establish the provisional nature of assessments and the timely issuance of notices led to the dismissal of the appeal. The lower appellate authority's decision to consider the demand of duty as time-barred was upheld, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.