Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 474 - AT - Central ExciseRegarding contention of appellant for non supply of test report - If there was at least one letter after receipt of test result till personal hearing in 2001 informing the department of upgradation of facilities, result of laboratory of OPL and seeking re-test, this claim would have been sustainable. It is all the more surprising that appellants did not seek re-test when the results were negative and they had upgraded the facility. - It is not the case of the appellant here that the report was in their favour and it was deliberately withheld. No evidence has been brought out to show that the gist of the report communicated by the department was different from the actual report. Regarding provisional assessment - it has also been pointed out that OPL themselves had written a letter vide No. C/217/01 in 1989 wherein OPL had spoken about execution of bond in connection with provisional assessment of the goods covered under Chapter 27. - On going through RT-12 returns, it was noticed that quite a few were provisionally assessed. RT-12 returns produced before us were found to be assessed provisionally from Jan. 93 to Feb. 94. - provisional assessment endorsements speak of assessment being provisional only in respect of Benzene and Toluene. No differential duty has been indicated in respect of other products in any of the assessment endorsements produced before us. In view of the fact that the provisional assessment memorandum was available upto Feb. 94 and thereafter clearly there was no provisional assessment memorandum, it has to be held that upto Feb. 94 assessment was definitely provisional.
|