2009 (12) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Provisional Assessment - the dispute relates to demand of differential duty for the period 2003-2004 due to finalisation of provisional assessment. Held that - plea of treating the finalization in block and adjusting excess payment in respect of some clearance towards short payment in other clearances during the period rejected. Assessment to be finalized month wise. Matter remanded to original authority for reconsideration.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) allowing departmental appeals against original authority's order.
2. Dispute regarding demand of differential duty for the period 2003-2004 due to finalization of provisional assessment.
3. Whether finalization of provisional assessment should be done invoice-wise or for the block period.
4. Adjustment of excess payment in respect of some clearances towards short payment involved in other clearances.
5. Assessment to be finalized month-wise as per Board's guidelines.
6. Calculation and payment of the differential duty within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing departmental appeals against the original authority's order. The Department contended that finalization should not have been done invoice-wise, and excess payment should be dealt with separately by filing a refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Department's appeal.

Issue 2: The dispute related to the demand of differential duty for the period 2003-2004 due to the finalization of provisional assessment. The appellants cleared unprocessed fabrics on payment of duty, and provisional assessment was finalized by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, confirming the differential duty, which was not in dispute.

Issue 3: The main issue was whether the finalization of provisional assessment should be done invoice-wise or for the block period. The Tribunal referred to the case law and discussed the necessity of finalization by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner within a specified time frame, considering factors like profit margin and uncertainty in valuation.

Issue 4: The appellants argued for adjusting excess payment in some clearances towards short payment in other clearances during the entire period of 2003-2004. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument and emphasized finalization on a month-wise basis as per the Board's guidelines.

Issue 5: The assessment was directed to be finalized month-wise as per the Board's guidelines and the Tribunal's precedent in a similar case. The appellants were instructed to work out the differential duty payable and pay it within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by rejecting the appellants' prayer for block finalization and adjusting excess payments. It directed the assessment to be finalized month-wise, with the appellants required to calculate and pay the differential duty within a specified period. The original authority was tasked with verifying the duty worksheet submitted by the appellants and issuing a speaking order if discrepancies were found.