9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was claimed by them under Chapter 76. The various C/lists filed by them from time to time were approved by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commr., Central Excise in terms of the declarations made by them. At the start of financial year 1992-93, the appellants again filed C/List on 5-3-1992 claiming the classification of the goods under Chapter 73 and Chapter 76. Thereafter, the goods were cleared on payment of duty at the rate applicable to the tariff headings claimed by them. However, their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities entertained a view that the proper classification of the goods is under Heading 86.07 as parts of the railways. The said classification list was subsequently approved by the Asstt. Collector on 23-4-1993 under sub-he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he differential duty. He also makes reference to the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Costal Gases and Chemicals Ltd. [1997 (92) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) = 1997 (20) R.L.T. 824 (S.C.)] wherein it has been laid down that the assessments during the pendency approval of the classification list is to be treated as provisional provided the assessee has followed the procedure of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that admittedly in the instant case procedure under Rule 9B has not been followed by them and the Department never directed them to execute any bond in terms of the said rule. Accordingly, he submits that the demand is barred by limitation and prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Countering the argument, Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants. 6. As regards limitation apart from the decision relied upon by the learned Consultant, we find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mardia Steel Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 627 (Tribunal-LB) = 2000 (38) R.L.T. 353 (CEGAT-LB) has held that orders for provisional assessments are mandatory requirements of the clearance under Rule 9B(4) except in situation covered under Rule 173CC. In the instant case, we find that there are no orders for provisional assessments under Rule 9B. The appellants are also not covered in any of the situation enumerated under Rule 173CC. As the Tribunal s Larger Bench has held that assessments pending approval of C/Lists can be treated as provisional only when the orders for provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
