Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 515 - CESTAT KOLKATAFinalisation of differential duty - disallowance of abatements - finalisation of duty ordered on the ground that the assessments were provisional - contention of the appellant is that, in the absence of explicit noting of provisional assessment and the various securities attached to such assessment, there can be no provisional assessment and, consequently, any demand beyond the normal period of limitation in section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 would not lie against them. Held that:- It is clear from the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of the Tribunal that the various prerequisites, enumerated by the appellant while adverting to the nature of assessment, would not be essential to the extent that the circumstances did not admit to an absence of doubt about the finality of the assessment. It is the normal practice for assessment to be provisional when the duty liability is discharged at the time of clearance from the factory gate without simultaneous delivery of the goods to the customer. The liability to duty, arising after abatement of the various cost claimed to be post-manufacture, is an obligation under law. The limitation on demand of duty will have to be established on substantial grounds and not by recourse to a claim for disallowance of provisional assessment. In the absence of an order of final assessment, and in the context of a demand for recovery based on the various submissions made by the assessee, it would not be appropriate to set aside the detailed findings in which the original authority has, having taken note of the limited terms of remand of the Tribunal, held the assessment to have been provisional - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|