1997 (1) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of refund claim and time limitation under Rule 173-J.

Provisional Assessment Interpretation:
The reference was made under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the lawfulness of treating the entire assessment as provisional or only specific grounds. The Tribunal's view was that a provisional assessment must be treated as provisional in its entirety, regardless of the specific grounds. The issue was considered in light of previous decisions by the Apex Court and the Tribunal. The judgment of the Apex Court in Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and a subsequent decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal were cited. The Court concluded that the provisional assessment should be considered as provisional for all purposes, not limited to specific grounds.

Time Limitation under Rule 173-J:
The Tribunal's decision regarding the time limit for limitation under Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also discussed. The Tribunal held that the time limit starts from the date of finalization of the assessment by the Department. This decision was based on the understanding that a provisional assessment, even if made on different grounds, should be treated as provisional in its entirety. The respondent did not appear through any counsel during the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Court, after considering the relevant legal precedents, answered the question referred to them in the negative. They held that the provisional assessment made should be treated as provisional for all purposes, not restricted to specific grounds. No costs were awarded in this matter.