9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Heading 8485.90 chargeable to duty @15% ad valorem. The said classification list was approved by the respondents jurisdictional Central Excise Officers. Thereafter, the appellants filed three more classification lists effective from 1-3-1989 and 20-3-1990 claiming the products under the same very heading chargeable to duty @15% ad valorem. During the pendency of the approval of the said classification list, the respondents continued their clearances in accordance with the earlier approved classification lists effective from 1-3-1986 on the basis of declaration made by them. All these lists were finally approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise at a higher rate of duty @20% ad valorem vide his adjudication order No. 116/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here cannot be any reason for treating the assessment during the relevant period, as provisional. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the notice was barred by limitation. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before us. 6. We have heard Shri T. Premkumar, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents. 7. The respondents have not challenged the classification subsequently approved by the Assistant Commissioner. However, their main submission before the first appellate authority was that the assessment could not be treated as provisional in the absence of any specific orders to that effect under the provisions of Rule 9B and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied with. To the same effect, another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aloke Udyog Vanaspati and Plywood Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I reported in 1998 (25) RLT 59 wherein it was held that the assessment of RT 12 returns provisionally without following the mandatory provision of Rule 9B or Rule 173C, cannot be treated as provisional assessment. We also take note of the Honourable Supreme Court s decision in the case of Coastal Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) = 1997 (20) RLT 824 (S.C.) wherein in para 5, their Lordships have observed that assessment would be provisional subject to observance of procedures laid down in Rule 9B. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
