2000 (10) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of demands issued before finalization of classification lists.
2. Provisional nature of assessments.
3. Authority to issue demands by Range Superintendent.
4. Compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment.

Issue 1: Validity of demands issued before finalization of classification lists:
The appeal was filed against the Collector (Appeals) order upholding demands issued before finalization of classification lists. The appellant argued that the demands were issued prematurely, relying on the Bombay High Court decision in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. However, the Tribunal found that the demands were not time-barred as they were based on reworking duty amounts due to a change in classification, which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the demands were valid and upheld them.

Issue 2: Provisional nature of assessments:
The appellants contended that the assessments were provisional, citing previous orders and lack of execution of required bonds for provisional approval of classification lists. The Tribunal noted that Rule 173B allows provisional assessment if Rule 9B procedures are followed. Since these procedures were not adhered to, the assessments could not be considered provisional. The Tribunal concluded that the judgments cited by the appellants were inapplicable as they pertained to cases where assessments were admittedly provisional. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' argument on the provisional nature of assessments.

Issue 3: Authority to issue demands by Range Superintendent:
The appellants argued that the Range Superintendent lacked authority to issue demands, referencing a tribunal decision and a judgment of the Calcutta High Court. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the demands issued by the proper officer under Section 11A.

Issue 4: Compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment:
The Tribunal highlighted that compliance with Rule 9B is essential for provisional assessment. Since the required procedures were not followed, the assessments could not be considered provisional. The Tribunal emphasized that without adherence to the prescribed procedures, assessments cannot be deemed provisional. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) order upholding the demands determined by the proper officer under Section 11A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the findings regarding the validity of the demands, the nature of assessments, the authority to issue demands, and compliance with Rule 9B for provisional assessment.