Provisional assessment requires a specific order and security; departmental appeals also fail without stated grounds of appeal.

Provisional assessment could not be inferred without a specific order, the prescribed bond and security, or other rule-based compliance; mere references to revised price lists or an alleged admission were insufficient, so the demand could not rest on provisional assessment. Departmental appellate proceedings were also held defective because the grounds of appeal were not specified or enclosed as required by the governing appeal provision, making the authorization and resulting order unsustainable. The appeal therefore succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment could be treated as provisional in the absence of a specific order, bond or bank guarantee under the relevant rules and circular; (ii) whether the appellate proceedings were vitiated for want of specification of grounds of appeal under the statutory provision governing departmental appeals.

Issue (i): whether the assessment could be treated as provisional in the absence of a specific order, bond or bank guarantee under the relevant rules and circular.

Analysis: The record did not show any specific order directing provisional assessment, nor any bond executed under the rule. The order under challenge relied only on references to revised price lists and an alleged admission, which was insufficient to establish provisional assessment. The governing circular required a clear order, reasons for provisional assessment, the rate and value on which duty was to be paid provisionally, the differential duty secured by bond, and the required security or surety.

Conclusion: The assessments were not shown to be provisional, and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate proceedings were vitiated for want of specification of grounds of appeal under the statutory provision governing departmental appeals.

Analysis: The authorization for departmental appeal was found to be defective because the grounds of appeal were not enclosed or specified. The statutory provision requires the competent authority to indicate the points arising out of the lower order for determination, and absence of such grounds was treated as fatal to the proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellate proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory requirement, and the impugned order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee obtained the relief flowing from that result.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot be sustained as based on provisional assessment unless provisional assessment is specifically ordered and supported by the required bond and security, and departmental appellate action must disclose the grounds of appeal as mandated by the governing appeal provision.

---