1986 (4) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of electric lamp holders under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Validity of the demand for differential duty based on time-bar.
3. Provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Finalization of provisional assessment and its timing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Electric Lamp Holders:
The appellants contended that the electric lamp holders should be classified under T.I. 68 CET, attracting a 2% duty. However, the Tribunal, bound by earlier decisions, confirmed the classification under T.I. 61 CET, which attracts a higher duty rate of 10%.

2. Validity of the Demand for Differential Duty Based on Time-Bar:
The Assistant Collector initially dropped the demand for differential duty, citing it was time-barred. The demand notice was issued on 27-12-1978 for the period 18-6-1977 to 6-10-1977. The Collector, however, reviewed and set aside this order, arguing that the assessments were provisional and finalized only on 13-12-1978, thus not barred by time.

3. Provisional Assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The appellants argued that there was no provisional assessment during the relevant period due to the absence of a written order. They presented additional evidence, including a letter from the Superintendent dated 1-1-1986, which indicated that the appellants had opted for provisional assessment but did not have a written order. The Tribunal found that despite the absence of a written order, the conduct of the appellants (execution of bonds and letters) supported the existence of a provisional assessment. The Tribunal referenced the bond dated 25-6-1977 and another dated 12-7-1977, which indicated an agreement to pay differential duty pending classification clarification.

4. Finalization of Provisional Assessment and Its Timing:
The appellants argued that the provisional assessment should have been finalized on 4-10-1977 when the department received clarification from the Board. However, the Tribunal held that the letter dated 4-10-1977 did not finalize the assessment for earlier clearances but only indicated the duty rate to be applied from that date forward. The finalization was deemed to have occurred on 13-12-1978, when the RT 12 returns were finalized. The Tribunal did not find the delay in finalization unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the classification of electric lamp holders under T.I. 61 CET and upheld the Collector's order, rejecting the appellants' arguments regarding the absence of a written order for provisional assessment and the alleged time-bar. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the demand for differential duty as valid and timely.