Provisional excise demand cannot stand as final adjudication where related levy liability awaits High Court determination.

An order demanding Central Excise duty and Special Excise duty on pack sheets and twine, expressed to operate "only for the time being," was treated as provisional rather than a final adjudication and was therefore not legally sustainable. The Board noted that the liability was linked to a pending High Court challenge on cess on captively consumed twine, which could affect the duty position on the goods in question. The demand order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after the High Court's ruling became available, so that final liability could be determined on a complete legal basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order demanding Central Excise duty and Special Excise duty on pack sheets and twine was sustainable when it was expressed to operate only for the time being and the connected question regarding levy of cess on captively consumed twine was still pending before the High Court.

Analysis: The Board noted that cess on jute goods is in the nature of a duty of excise and that the High Court's decision in the pending writ petition on levy of cess on captively consumed twine may have a bearing on the liability to Central Excise duty and Special Excise duty on the goods in question. The Board further found that although the impugned order had an appearance of finality, the use of the words "only for the time being" showed that it was in substance a provisional order. Such a provisional order was held not to be legally sustainable as an adjudication order.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Collector for a final decision after considering the outcome of the Calcutta High Court writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief by setting aside of the impugned demand order and a fresh adjudication was directed after the related High Court decision became available.

Ratio Decidendi: An order demanding duty that is expressed to operate only temporarily is a provisional order and cannot stand as a valid adjudication order when the underlying liability depends on the outcome of pending proceedings on the related levy.

---