9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility to produce document or furnishing necessary information; pending chemical analysis; making further enquiry. Pendency of the proceedings in the High Court would not cover any of these situations . In the case of M/s. Anchor Porcelain Works v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 152 it was held that ordering provisional assessment not indicating whether any information is wanting from the assessee nor pendency of an enquiry from the proper officer is defective . Viewed from the above authorities, it is clear that the Assistant Collector s letter dated 7-2-1983 stating that the classification list filed on 3-8-1982 is to be assessed provisionally is clearly beyond the purview of the provisions of Rule 9B which are identical to the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, discussed in the CEGAT order. The letter merely states that finalisation will be made on completion of certain correspondence on the matter. It is one of the vaguest reasons possible for ordering provisional assessment. None of the ingredients for ordering provisional assessment in terms of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, exists. If such a course of action is allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri A. Jayachandran for appellant-Revenue and ld. Advocate Shri P.S. Raman for assessee. 4. Ld. DR pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is not legal and proper for the reasons already stated in the grounds of appeal and seeks for restoration of Order-in-Original No. 268/95, dated 30-10-1995 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Coimbatore-II Division. The issue before the AC was with regard to the classification of reclaimed rubber. The assessee had claimed the classification under T.I. 16A (2) (w.e.f. 3-8-1982) which was approved by the department and the AC. However, there was a slight mistake in the classification list. There was a slight typographical mistake in the classification list inasmuch as instead of typing NIL , they have typed it as 35% . Therefore, the assessee had asked for correction by his letter dated 5-10-1982. The AC by his letter dated 7-2-1983 in response to their letter seeking mere correction in the approved classification list, informed them that the department has treated the classification list as provisional and finalisation will be made in due course. The letter dated 7-2-1983 is reproduced herein below :- C.No. V/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the correspondence referred to in the impugned communication. Appellants have also not approached lower authority to ascertain the reasons for provisional assessment. As such, the communication dated 7-2-1983 cannot be considered as an appealable order or a decision under, the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1994 and at Rules made thereunder. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. 6. It is stated by the ld. DR that after the letter dated 7-2-1983 was passed by the AC by his Order-in-Original C. No. V/68/17/36/81 (Part II) Coimbatore, dated 7-2-1983 holding the item to be classifiable under T.I. 16A and vacating the protest which had been lodged by the assessee in the mean time after the letter dated 7-2-1983 was passed, the Commissioner (Appeals) by his OIA No. 261/82(M), dt. 20-7-1982 set aside the OIO of the AC and upheld the claim for classification of the item under T.I. 16A(2). Revenue was aggrieved with this order. Hence, they filed an appeal before the Tribunal Special Bench at New Delhi in E/143/83-D. The Tribunal by its final Order No. 349/84D, dt. 1-6-1984 set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and upheld the department s contention for classifying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an approved classification list cannot be reopened by a letter in response to the assessee s seeking correction for typographical mistake. Against the said letter, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who clearly by his Order-in-Appeal No. 202/83, dated 1-6-1983 clarified that the letter dated 7-2-1983 is only a communication and not an appealable order. This has sealed the department s case. However, subsequently, the AC on the basis of this letter dated 7-2-1983 passed OIO reversing the approved classification from T.I. 16A(2) to T.I. 68 which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed their appeal by OIA No. 261/82, dated 20-7-1982. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by final order No. 349/84-D, dated 1-6-1984 upheld department s view for classification under T.I. 68. It is his contention that the order of the CEGAT does not reverse the position in so far as the approval of classification list dated 5-10-1982 which was approved on 17-9-1982. In the absence of any appeal against the approved classification list and the assessees were not insisted upon to follow the procedure and the formality of provisional asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d valorem and 5% Ad valorem on B.E.D . In other pages of the classification list, the rate of duty had been shown as Nil . The classification list was duly approved and cleared by all the officers i.e. Inspector of Central Excise, Superintendent of Central Excise and finally approved by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise-II Division on 17-9-1982. It follows that the items in question were classified under T.I. 16A(2) which under exemption Notification No. 71/68, dated 1-4-68 read with Notification No. 27/73, dated 1-3-73 carried NIL rate of duty. These notifications have been noted in column 9 and therefore they have clearly indicated them. Therefore, the appellant had made a typographical error in mentioning 35% Ad valorem, 5% on B.E.D . They, therefore sought for correction of this column above as there was no doubt about the proper officer clearly granting the benefit of notification and approving the classification list. They were clearing it without payment of duty during the relevant period in question and the department was fully aware of the same. When appellants filed the letter for mere correction of the column 7 of the classification list, instead of correctin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r assessment of any goods provisionally from time to time : Provided that, in the event of death, insolvency or insufficiency of the surety or where the amount of the bond is inadequate, the Collector may, in his discretion, demand a fresh bond and may, if the security furnished for a bond is not adequate, demand additional security. (4) The goods provisionally assessed under sub-rule (1) may be cleared for home consumption or export in the same manner as the goods which are not so assessed. (5) When the duty leviable on the goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of these rules, the duty provisionally assessed shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed, and if the duty provisionally assessed falls short of, or is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the assessee shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be. 10. The above rule clearly indicates that the provisional assessment of duty can be resorted only when the assessee is unable to produce any document or furnish any information necessary for the assessment of duty or where the goods are subjected to chemical test and keep the provisional for reopen. Applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not before it. The reading of any of the Orders of the Court will not support this conclusion. Further, the interim stay granted by the Court was vacated by its Order dated 14-1-1986, as has been observed by the Bench while disposing of the stay application. Subsequently, the appellants paid, using the words of the Court Whatever is the balance payable by the petitioner . The demands is time-barred even taking this into account. The demand, is therefore, barred by limitation. 11. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Coastal Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., also observed that demand of duty can be considered to be provisional only when the procedure under Rule 9B had been followed as had been held earlier by the Apex Court in Samrat International Pvt. Ltd., 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561. Such a procedure under Rule 9B has not been followed in the present case. There was a clear approval of classification list and the contention raised by the assessee and their Counsel before us is sustainable. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is reproduced already is in terms of law. The subsequent changes according the approval by Order-in-Original and matter going up to CEGAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. SRW) vide their letter No. SRW CXB 1625, dated 13-10-1981 (Page 2 of the paperbook) informed the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Coimbatore that they holding licence for the manufacture of reclaimed rubber being assessed under Tariff Item No. 68 and they supply reclaimed rubber to all leading manufactures of tyres, tubes and battery containers. In this letter the respondents-assessee clarified that the rubber products i.e. reclaimed rubber manufactured by them is in the form of sheets unhardened and not vulcanised and they are of the opinion that the rubber products i.e. reclaimed rubber manufactured by them is in the form of sheets unhardened and not vulcanised is rightly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 16A(2) and they therefore informed that their product i.e. reclaimed rubber is rightly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 16A(2) and requested the Assistant Collector to pass necessary orders to allow them to file a new classification list. They therefore, sought to classify the product i.e. reclaimed rubber under Tariff Heading 16A(2) claiming exemption under Notification No. 71/68, dated 1-4-68. Since the respondents assessee was not happy with the clarification of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Order-in-Appeal No. 261/82(M), dated 20-7-1982 (available at Page 11 of the paperbook) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that from the report of the Chemical Examiner communicated to the assessee he found no such inference that Tariff Item 16A covers only natural rubber which the Assistant Collector learnt from the report of the Chemical Examiner. The learned Appellate Collector also took assistance from the tariff description of Item 16A whether there was reference to natural rubber. The impugned product was found by the Appellate Collector made of rubber and was available in the form of sheets, unhardened and in view of the Chemical Examiner s report communicated to the assessee, he was of the view that it would fall under Tariff Item 16A(2) of the CET. The Appellate Collector set aside the impugned order No. C. No. V/68/17/36/81, dated 22-3-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise II Division who had classified the reclaimed rubber manufactured by the assessee under Tariff Heading 68 of the CE by rejecting their classification filed under Tariff Item 16A of the CET and vacating the protest lodged earlier. The Appellate Collector while deciding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal against the order dated 7-2-1983 filed by the respondents before the Collector Appeals was dismissed on the ground that the communication dated 7-2-1983 of the Assistant Collector was not an appealable order, vide Order-in-Appeal No. 202/83(M), dated 1-6-1983 (Page 39 of the paperbook). 18. The Assistant Collector thereafter issued show cause notice vide C.No. V/40/30/13/94-CX., dated 20-4-1995 demanding differential duty of ₹ 23,89,103.74 for the period from 1-8-1982 to 4-11-1984 under Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944 besides asking them as to why their classification list should not be approved finally under TI 68 and after considering the reply furnished by the party, the Assistant Collector passed the Order-in-Original No. 268/95, dated 30-10-1995 approving the classification list under Tariff Heading 68 and confirming duty of ₹ 23,89,103.74 invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944. The operative portion of the order of Assistant Collector dated 30-10-1995 is extracted herein below for convenience of reference : ORDER I approve the classification list filed M/s. Super Rubber Works, Coimbatore, dt. 5-10-1982 by classifying the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he clearance of the goods since there is always balance in the account current sufficient to cover the duty on the goods that may be intended to be removed at any time. Therefore, the clearance made by the respondents-assessee for the period from 1-8-1982 to 4-11-1984 was in accordance with procedure for provisional assessment. Hence provisional assessment was very much relevant during the material period and the assessees were well aware of this fact. 20. Aggrieved by the order of the AC dated 30-10-1995, the respondent went in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) and the Collector (Appeals), Trichy vide order in No. 298/96 (CBE), dated 15-5-1996 held that the Assistant Collector s letter dated 7-2-1983 stating that the classification list filed on 3-8-82 is to be assessed provisionally is clearly beyond the purview of Rule 9B of the CE Rules, 1944 which are identical to the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 discussed in the CEGAT order. While arriving at this conclusion the learned Collector (Appeals) relied upon the judgment in the case of Garware Plastics and Polyster Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 297. He also relied upon the judgment in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion of Chief Chemist also that the above item was not covered under T.I. 16A. Under the circumstances only, the provisional assessment order was issued which was in order. The party s appeal against the provisional assessment order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order No. 202/83(M) holding that the appellants had not approached lower authority to ascertain the reasons for provisional assessment. It was, therefore, open to the assessee to approach the department for ascertaining reasons for provisional assessment, if they really felt that they were in the dark about the same. During the period under dispute, an endorsement for provisional assessment on classification list or price list as the case may be constituted an adequate order to follow provisional assessment. There is no legal requirement to issue an order to assessee mentioning all the reasons for resorting to provisional assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed in his order that as the assessee had claimed classification following order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), the only course open to the department was to have kept the matter alive by raising demand periodically under Sec. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector (Appeals) is not acceptable because as per Rule 9B provisional assessment can be ordered by the Assistant Collector if among other things he has deputed an officer to make further enquiry or subject the excisable goods to the chemical tests. The Revenue has also submitted that the rule does not require that the detailed reasoning ordering provisional assessment have to be indicated in the order for provisional assessment. However, for the benefit of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assistant Collector had mentioned in his letter dated 7-3-1983 that finalisation will be made on completion of certain correspondence on the matter. The Revenue in their appeal further relied upon the judgment of M/s. Ahura Chemical Product (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 642 (T) wherein it was held that even if provisional assessment order is not in clear terms, no appeal would lie against it and that the provisionality would be valid. They have also submitted that it was open to the assessee to approach the department for ascertaining the reasons for provisional assessment, if they really felt that they were in the dark about the same. On the contrary I ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Polyester Ltd. v. CC reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 297 and Anchor Porcelain Works v. AC of Central Excise reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 152 in which the assessee claimed that the assessment during the period in question cannot be treated as provisional. The Collector (Appeals) also relied upon the decision in the case of J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills v. UOI reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 234 which was cited by the assessee before him to claim that any short-levy can be recovered only in terms of Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) straightaway proceeded to rely on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. CC reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 297 which was a case pertaining to provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherein CEGAT had held that Section 18 of the Customs Act, provides for provisional assessment only for three reasons such as (i) inability to produce documents or furnishing necessary information, (ii) pending chemical analysis (iii) making further enquiry. Pendency of the proceedings in the High Court would not cover any of these situations. In this case, the Assistant Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Chemical analysis and the revised opinion of the Chemical Examiner was pending before the AC and he was also making further inquiry based on the report of the Supdt. cited by him in Para 10 of his order. The Collector (Appeals) has not at all gone into the facts and circumstances which led to the provisional assessment . He has also not discussed as to how the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of Elson v. CCE reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 was not applicable wherein the Supreme Court had held that there is no estoppel from taking a different view and there is no estoppel against law. The Supdt s. report based on which the Assistant Collector had directed him to draw samples and based on the opinion drawn from these samples the Assistant Collector had ordered for approval of classification list filed on 5-10-1982 as provisional and directed the assessee to execute bond in the form B-13 under Rule 9B of the CE Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) has also not commented on the land mark judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Samrat International v. CCE (supra) wherein the Apex Court had held that no bond as provided for under Rule 9B is required in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in such circumstances could have stopped the appellants clearances and they appeared to have taken a softer line by permitting the appellants to continue to clear the goods and assessed the RT12 returns provisionally. The tribunal went on to say that the assessment, in the facts and circumstances, has been correctly held to be provisional by the lower authority. 14. Thus it is seen that the provisional assessment was resorted to as per the provisions of law and the position established by case laws in this regard and the appeal filed by the assessee against the same had been dismissed. Hence the provisional assessment was very much prevalent in the material period and the assessee was well aware of this fact. In view of the CEGAT s order No. E/291/93/-D, dt. 6-9-1993, I now hold the item reclaimed rubber classifiable under T.I. 68 and not eligible to the benefit of Notfn. 71/68 consequently. The assessment is to be finalised accordingly. As the assessments were done provisionally, any duty of excise not levied or short-levied can be demanded under the provisions of Sec. 11A of CESA, 1944 within six months of the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment. This bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. 24. It was therefore clear that not only the Assistant Collector had given them letter that their classification list had been approved provisionally and their assessments were provisional but also he was repeatedly asking them to Execute B13 bond for the differential amount as the department was holding right from the very beginning that they are required to pay duty under Tariff Item 68 and that they are not exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 71/68, dated 1-4-68. 25. Coming to the circumstances under which provisional assessment was ordered, the Appellate Collector had passed an order No. 261/82(M), dated 20-7-1982 holding reclaimed rubber classifiable under item No. 16A, after physical examination of the product and also in view of the Chemical Examiner s Report. The assessee had then filed the classification list classifying the item under 16A and claiming the benefit under exemption Notification No. 71/68, dated 1-4-68 which reads as under : The Central Government exempts all rubber products in the form of plates, sheets and strips unhardened whether vulcanised or not and combined with any textile material or otherwise (other than the products w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts. The first report from the Central Excise Range Officer which disclosed that some of the tread rubber manufacturers were using 5 to 15% of the reclaimed rubber in their finished product in admixture with natural rubber in order to reduce their manufacturing cost and as the product which are either wholly or partly of rubber and which are used for re-soling, re-treading or repairing of tyres including the product commonly known as tread rubber, camal back cushion compound, etc., he found that reclaimed rubber so manufactured by the assessee is excluded from the purview of Exemption Notification 71/68, dated 1-4-68. Secondly, he also had the report of the revised opinion of the Chemical Examiner on the issue of classification which was received by him vide their letter No. LCX/16A/9/82, dated 24-9-1983 that is to say after the earlier report of the Chemical Examiner sent to the respondents-assessee on 15-6-1982 and based on which order of the Appellate Collector dated 20-7-1982 was passed. Thus it can be seen that the classification of the reclaimed rubber as well as its eligibility to the benefit of Notification 71/68 was not free from doubt and in such circumstances, the AC had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roved by the Assistant Collector in deference to the order of the Collector (Appeals), dated 20-7-1982. The Hon ble Apex Court again in the case of Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. v. CCE reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 161 has given similar verdict. Therefore, when the departmental authorities can revise classification list approved by them earlier, it naturally follows that under such circumstances classification list filed can also be dealt with accordingly. The only condition imposed on the department is that this is to be done only when there are fresh facts coming to the light and it has to be done as per the provisions of law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It is also on record that after the classification list was first approved, the fact regarding use of reclaimed rubber in the manufacture of tread rubber and the revised opinion of the Chemical Examiner had been received and hence there was doubt in regard to the tariff entry of the impugned product and therefore the classification list filed again could not be approved immediately and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of law, the Assistant Collector had ordered provisional assessment. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-opening the classification list which had been approved under Tariff Item 16A(2) allowing the benefit of notification to be retrospective and whether it can be approved provisionally under Rule 9B of the CE Rules, extracted under Para 9 of his order. His findings are recorded in Para 10 of the order recorded by him in which he has held that Rule 9B clearly indicates that the provisional assessment of duty can be resorted to only when the assessee is unable to produce any documents or furnishing any information necessary for the assessment of duty or where the goods are subjected to chemical test and that application of these conditions are available for keeping the assessment provisional. These observations have been made by the learned M(J) without going through the facts as recorded in the order-in-original wherein it was stated that on receipt of the revised opinion of the Supdt. he had also ordered for assessment of the classification list provisionally. He has also observed that if there was mistake on the part of the department in approving the same, the only procedure left for them was to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which has not been done. This is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally stated that the assessments are provisional and he very categorically had stated that the assessments were kept provisional as per the provisional approval to the classification list filed by them on 5-10-1982. The facts in that case were completely different and this judgment is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case involved in this case and the learned Member (J) misdirected himself in applying this judgment against the Revenue and in favour of the party. 28. Similarly in Para 11, the learned Member (J) has discussed the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Coastal Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.). In this case also facts were different from the facts mentioned in the case before us. In the case of Coastal Gases and Chemicals (supra) the assessee had filed classification list and the same was not approved and kept pending by the Assistant Collector as could be seen from Para 5 of the judgment which is extracted herein below : 5. The question of vires of Section 11B is now settled by a decision of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 30-10-1995. On the contrary the respondents-assessee in that case had established before the departmental authorities for considering the refund claim and also for refund in terms of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] and the Supreme Court had observed that they have not shown any material to indicate whether the appellant in that case had cleared the goods viz. carbon dioxide manufactured by them by following the procedure laid down under Rule 9B or with payment of duty which also during the relevant period was provisional, whereas in the case before us, the procedure laid down under Rule 9B has also been followed except the procedure of execution of B-13 bond by the assessee which the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in Para 9 held that if procedure prescribed under Rule 9B had been followed except in the circumstances that no bond as provided under this Rule is required in a case where the personal ledger account is maintained for the clearance of the goods, since there is always sufficient balance in the account current to cover the duty that may be demanded on the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint for determination in the present appeal is whether the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was right in holding that order dated 7-2-1983 was clearly beyond the purview of the provisions of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules and allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of duty demand being beyond the statutory period of limitation. 31. The Assistant Collector s order dated 7-2-1983 may be read [even though the same has been reproduced at page 4 of the order of the learned Member (Judicial)] for ease of consideration of the issue at hand :- C.No.V/68/17/36/81 (Part II), dated 7-2-1983 Sub : Central Excise Classification of reclaimed rubber - M/s. Super Rubber Works, Ganapat - regarding. The classification list dated 5-10-1982 in respect of reclaimed rubber sheets has been approved provisionally with effect from 3-8-1982. The finalisation will be made on completion of certain correspondence on the matter. Encl. one C.L. Sd/- K. Kalyan Nag Asstt. Collector 32. It is this order that the Commissioner has held to be clearly beyond the purview of provisions of Rule 9B . Rule 9B which has been reproduced at page 11 of the order of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Anchor Porcelain Works v. CCE, Rajkot, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 152. The observations contained in that decision of the CEGAT are not attracted to the facts in the present case inasmuch as the Assistant Collector has given his reason for ordering provisional assessment in his order dated 7-2-1983 as requirement to complete certain correspondence on the matter. The decision in Garware Plastic v. CCE, Pune - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 297 also does not appear to be attracted to the facts of the present case inasmuch as that was a case where no direction for provisional assessment had been made by any authority. In the present case, order of the Assistant Collector clearly stated that the assessment would be provisional and it would be finalized subsequently. The observation of the Apex Court in the case of Coastal Gases and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. also does not seem to be relevant to the present controversy in view of the specific direction for provisional assessment, even though the assessee did not comply with the direction of the authorities to execute bond. The essential requirement for provisional assessment is that an order be passed to that effect by the proper officer. Such an order exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
