1999 (5) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the demand issued to M/s. Sariman Chemicals Corporation is hit by the time limit as specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal raised the issue of whether the demand issued to M/s. Sariman Chemicals Corporation was within the time limit as per Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Respondents had filed classification lists for their products, but the Assistant Collector approved a different classification. A show cause notice was issued for demanding duty for specific financial years, which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. However, the Collector (Appeals) held the demand to be time-barred due to the absence of an order for provisional assessment. The Revenue argued that Rule 173CC allowed for provisional assessment even without a specific order, citing relevant case law to support their position. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that they were directed by the Department to classify their product under a specific subheading and were not informed about the need for provisional assessment. They also argued that the demand was wrongly quantified and beyond the time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and found that Rule 173CC did not apply to the situation as the Respondents were not falling under the specified categories. It was noted that no order under Rule 9B for provisional assessment had been passed in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that if there were doubts about the classification, provisional assessment should have been conducted as per the law. The delayed finalization of the classification list alone did not make the assessment provisional. Referring to relevant case law, the Tribunal highlighted that there was no evidence to show that the assessment was provisional, apart from a remark on R.T.12 by the Superintendent, which was not considered as an order for provisional assessment. Based on these findings, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and disposed of the cross objections filed by the Respondents accordingly.