2019 (11) TMI 415 - HC - Central Excise

Provisional assessment of clearances made - Circular No.26/89 dated 24.04.1989 and Circular No.13/90-CX-6 dated 25.05.1990 issued by CBEC - time limitation - HELD THAT - The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law. List this appeal for hearing on 11th December, 2019.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Circular No.26/89 and Circular No.13/90-CX-6 issued by CBEC.
2. Validity of assessments during 1990-1991 to 1993-1994 as provisional.
3. Determination of limitation on demand of duty without an order for provisional assessment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Circulars
The first substantial question of law raised in the judgment pertains to the interpretation of Circular No.26/89 and Circular No.13/90-CX-6 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The appellant contests the tribunal's decision not to consider these circulars, which clarify that clearances cannot be treated as provisionally assessed in the absence of an order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The crux of this issue lies in determining whether the tribunal erred in disregarding these circulars in the context of the appellant's case.

Issue 2: Validity of Assessments
The second question of law focuses on the validity of the assessments conducted on the appellant during the period 1990-1991 to 1993-1994. The tribunal deemed these assessments as provisional due to the absence of a specific order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant challenges this determination, raising concerns about the justification behind considering the assessments as provisional without a formal order. This issue delves into the procedural aspects of assessment and the legal requirements for categorizing assessments as provisional.

Issue 3: Limitation on Demand of Duty
The final issue revolves around the limitation on the demand of duty in the absence of an order for provisional assessment. The tribunal's decision to emphasize the establishment of substantial grounds for imposing limitations on duty demands is questioned by the appellant. Specifically, the appellant contests the tribunal's stance on the limitation period for demanding duty, highlighting concerns about the barred portions of the demand from April 1991 to February 1993 and October 1993 to March 1994. This issue delves into the temporal constraints and procedural aspects governing duty demands in the absence of a formal order for provisional assessment.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses significant legal questions concerning the interpretation of CBEC circulars, the validity of provisional assessments, and the imposition of limitations on duty demands in the absence of formal orders. The court's decision on these substantial questions of law will likely have implications for the appellant's case and potentially set precedents for similar matters in the realm of excise duty assessments.