2009 (8) TMI 592 - AT - Central Excise

Demand-Limitation- Show Cause Notice issued on 07.12.1999 for duty short paid during 1.3.1994 to 2.7.1996. clearance during period provisionally assessed following provisions of Rule 9B of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Letter dated 13.02.1998 of jurisdictional superintendent indicating amount of duty due on account of finalization of provisional assessment. For demand of duty short paid during provisional assessment, Rule 9B contains necessary provisions. No dispute of liability, appellant liable to pay without there being demand under section 11A of Central Excise Act.

Summary

Issues:
- Demand of duty short paid on petroleum products clearances
- Inclusion of various charges in assessable value
- Challenge to impugned order based on limitation and procedural grounds
- Application of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules for provisional assessment
- Liability to pay duty without demand under Section 11A of the Act

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed the issue of demand of duty short paid on clearances of petroleum products. The impugned order dealt with 11 Show Cause Notices proposing duty demands for various charges not included in the assessable value. The order confirmed a demand of Rs. 42,09,950/- related to 'siding and shunting charges' for clearances made during a specific period. The appeal challenged the order on the grounds that the notice lacked allegations of fraud or willful misstatement, invoking a larger period for duty short paid. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment to argue that the demand was time-barred.

The Revenue contended that the demand followed finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal analyzed the case records and submissions, noting that the petroleum products were provisionally assessed during the material period. The impugned order sought to implement a remand direction related to the valuation dispute. The Commissioner quantified the duty short paid on finalization of provisional assessment, citing Rule 9B provisions for demanding duty short paid during provisional assessment.

The Tribunal referenced a previous case to clarify that duty demands for provisional assessments needed to be finalized under Rule 9B, without the necessity of a demand under Section 11A of the Act. The judgment highlighted that the duty amount demanded was correctly payable by the appellants, and the impugned order was set aside as superfluous. The Tribunal differentiated the facts of the subject case from the Supreme Court precedent cited by the appellant. It concluded that the demand of duty did not require a prior Show Cause Notice under Section 11A, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

In summary, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the procedural and substantive aspects of the duty demand on petroleum products clearances, emphasizing the application of Rule 9B for provisional assessment and the liability to pay duty without a specific demand under Section 11A of the Act.