2017 (2) TMI 882

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKD/56/APL/NSK/06 dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the mater back to the adjudicating authority to arrive at the correct assessable value. However, against the impugned order, the stand taken by the appellant is that the demand is hit by limitation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .1997. The assessment is not provisional as neither the appellant applied for provisional assessment nor the Department has passed any provisional assessment order. Therefore, the assessment was not provisional, hence the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is incorrect. Accordingly, the finding that the demand is not time barred is also consequently incorrect. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is only on the ground of time bar. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) is on assumption and presumption that costing of the goods is done on yearly basis. He felt that the assessment is deemed to be provisional, which is basically incorrect on the fact that neither any provisional assessment order was passed by the Department, nor the appellant has sought for the provisional assessment. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X