2000 (4) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Provisional Assessment Finalization Date
2. Time Bar for Demand of Duty
3. Validity of Provisional Assessments
4. Classification List Approval and its Impact on Assessments

Provisional Assessment Finalization Date:

The primary issue revolves around when the provisional assessment was finalized. The Revenue argued that the finalization occurred on 14-5-93, while the Commissioner (Appeals) considered it to be on 16-4-92. The Tribunal noted that the Asstt. Collector had only ordered the appellant to calculate the differential duty, not finalize the assessment. Therefore, the finalization date was determined to be 14-5-93.

Time Bar for Demand of Duty:

The Revenue contended that the SCN dated 28-9-93 was within the six-month limit from the finalization date of 14-5-93. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the time limit for demand of duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should be computed from 14-5-93. Thus, the SCN was not time-barred.

Validity of Provisional Assessments:

The Tribunal examined whether the assessments were provisional. The respondent argued that the assessments were not provisional as there was no specific order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Samrat International Pvt. Ltd., which held that clearances made pending approval of the classification list are provisional. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessments were provisional.

Classification List Approval and its Impact on Assessments:

The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the period of provisional assessment should start from the date of bond execution or from the date of submission of the classification list. It referred to the Tribunal's decision in Eastern Industries & Marketing Co., which held that provisional assessment starts from the date of bond execution. However, the Supreme Court in Samrat International Pvt. Ltd. clarified that clearances made pending classification list approval are provisional. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessments under both classification lists were provisional.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were provisional, and the time limit for issuing the SCN for demanding duty should be counted from 14-5-93. Consequently, the demand was not time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.