1999 (3) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Heading 8485, treatment of assessments as provisional, compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment, applicability of Supreme Court judgments, limitation period for issuing show cause notice.

Classification of Goods:
The respondents claimed the classification of their goods under Heading 8485 chargeable to duty at 15% ad valorem. Subsequently, they filed additional classification lists under the same heading. The Assistant Commissioner approved the classification at a higher rate of duty of 20% ad valorem. The issue arose when the Range Officer directed the respondents to pay the differential duty for a specific period. The main contention was whether the assessments were provisional due to the pending approval of classification lists.

Treatment of Assessments as Provisional:
The Assistant Commissioner, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a personal penalty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessments could not be treated as provisional as the clearances were based on previously approved lists and there were no changes. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, stating that the notice was barred by limitation.

Compliance with Rule 9B for Provisional Assessment:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with Rule 9B for resorting to provisional assessment. It was noted that two conditions must be fulfilled for provisional assessment: obtaining permission from the proper officer and executing a proper bond covering the likely differential duty. Failure to meet these conditions renders the assessment non-provisional. The Tribunal differentiated between assessments pending approval of classification lists and those requiring compliance with Rule 9B for provisional status.

Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments:
The Tribunal referenced various Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions to clarify the requirements for provisional assessments. It highlighted that assessments cannot be treated as provisional unless the provisions of Rule 9B are fully complied with, including the specific order for provisional assessment and execution of the necessary bond. The judgments emphasized the importance of following statutory requirements for assessments to be considered provisional.

Limitation Period for Issuing Show Cause Notice:
In the absence of compliance with Rule 9B and the lack of a specific order for provisional assessment, the assessments were deemed not provisional. Consequently, the notice issued after six months from the actual payment of duty was considered barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal, concluding that the assessments were not provisional in this case.

By analyzing the issues of classification of goods, treatment of assessments as provisional, compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment, applicability of Supreme Court judgments, and the limitation period for issuing show cause notice, the Tribunal provided a comprehensive judgment that clarified the requirements for provisional assessments and highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory provisions for the proper classification and assessment of goods under Central Excise rules.