2017 (6) TMI 529 - AT - Central Excise

Provisional assessment or not? - Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994 - Held that - The said Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994 provides for provisional assessments for want of information such as value for assessment. The provision is made under the said Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994 for provisional assessments only when at a particular point of time the value to be determined for arriving at Central Excise duty payable when the rate of duty is ad-valorem is not known. The date on which the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-III, Ghaziabad passed Order-in-Original dated 13/12/2005, the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officer was having entire information in respect of the value of the goods to arrive at duty payable for the Financial Years 1998-99 to 2000-01. Therefore, there was no need on 13/12/2005 to examine the said issue for invocation of provisions of said Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994 for provisional assessments.
2. Validity of Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original regarding assessments for Financial Years 1998-99 to 2000-01.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994 for provisional assessments:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing LPG Cylinders, approached the Jurisdictional Officer for finalizing assessments for the Financial Years 1998-99 to 2000-01. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed an Order-in-Original stating that the appellant did not follow the provisions of Rule 9B for resorting to provisional assessment. The Tribunal noted that Rule 9B allows for provisional assessments when the value for assessment is unknown at a particular time, especially for ad-valorem duty rates. In this case, the Officer had all necessary information to determine the duty payable for the mentioned financial years. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the assessments should have been finalized based on the available information, and there was no need to invoke Rule 9B on the date of the Order-in-Original. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original were legally flawed.

2. Validity of Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original regarding assessments for Financial Years 1998-99 to 2000-01:
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, emphasizing that all required information for finalizing assessments had been submitted to the Jurisdictional Officers before the issuance of the Order-in-Original. The appellant also relied on a previous Larger Bench decision to support their case. After reviewing the contentions and examining both the impugned Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original, the Tribunal concluded that the Original Authority had misunderstood the provisions of Rule 9B. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Original Authority to finalize the assessments for the mentioned financial years within 90 days from the date of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal also instructed the appellant to inform the Central Excise Office about the decision promptly and stated that any excess duty paid should be refunded if found upon finalization of assessments, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to all reliefs as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of interpretation of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and the validity of the assessments for the Financial Years 1998-99 to 2000-01 as addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD.