2009 (12) TMI 794 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this case is whether the assessment for the period from 1-3-86 to 28-2-87 can be considered provisional and if the demand of duty confirmed against the appellants is sustainable.

Provisional Assessment:
The department claimed that the appellants filed a classification list in 1986, classifying the goods under sub-heading 5905.20, which was approved provisionally due to a dispute. The appellants argued that no order was issued for provisional assessment under Rule 9B, but the lower appellate authority deemed the assessment as provisional.

Case Laws on Provisional Assessment:
Various case laws were cited during the arguments, including:
1. *Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. CCE*: The Supreme Court discussed the procedure for provisional assessment and the time limit for refund in cases of provisional duty payment.
2. *Coastal Gases & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Collector*: The Court emphasized the need to establish if duty payment was provisional and the applicability of Rule 9B.
3. *Rajiv Mardia v. CCE, Indore*: The Tribunal held that the procedure under Rule 9B should be followed to show assessments are provisional.
4. *Metal Forgings v. UOI*: The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of an order under Rule 9B for provisional classification.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the classification list was provisionally approved, as verified by the jurisdictional officer. The Asst. Collector explicitly approved the classification provisionally under Rule 9B. The RT12 returns also indicated provisional assessment, supporting the provisional nature of the clearance and duty payment.

Conclusion:
Based on the facts and the legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessments for the period were provisional. The demand of duty against the appellants was upheld, as the appellants did not dispute the duty rate. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the Department was also disposed of.