Provisional assessment and limitation: mere use of the term did not validate extended time or sustain the demand.

Assessments were not provisional merely because the classification list used that term; absent an express provisional assessment order and compliance with Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the normal limitation period applied. The notice having been issued beyond that period, the demand was time-barred. The later settled legal position on simultaneous availment of the notification also meant the assessee's conduct could not be treated as mala fide, so the extended period was unavailable. The demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground that the assessments were not validly provisional and whether the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The notice was issued long after the relevant period. Although the classification list bore the word "provisional", no express order for provisional assessment was passed and the procedure under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not followed. Mere use of the word "provisional" on the classification list did not make the assessments provisional. The RT-12 returns were also filed and nothing showed that they were assessed provisionally. In these circumstances, the normal period of limitation applied. The legal position on simultaneous availment of the notification was also unsettled during the relevant period, and later authoritative resolution of the issue showed that the assessee's conduct could not be characterised as mala fide so as to justify the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and the extended limitation was not available to the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Assessments are not provisional merely because the word "provisional" appears on the classification list; absent a valid order and compliance with the prescribed procedure, the normal period of limitation applies and the extended period cannot be invoked without a sustainable basis for alleging mala fides.

---