Provisional assessment on depot clearances permits duty adjustment on finalisation without a separate refund claim.

Clearances from factories to depots were treated as provisional assessments where the correct assessable value could not be ascertained at removal because abatements depended on later depot sales. The absence of a formal provisional order did not defeat that characterisation when the factual basis for valuation was unavailable and the assessments were left open. On finalisation of such provisional assessments, excess duty was required to be adjusted against short-levied duty under the provisional assessment mechanism, and a separate refund claim was not necessary. The substitution of Rule 173-I did not alter this position, as it was procedural and independent of Rule 9B.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether clearances made from the factories to depots, where the exact abatements were not available at the time of removal, were liable to be treated as provisional assessments under Rule 9B; and (ii) whether, on finalisation of such provisional assessments, excess duty could be adjusted against short-levied duty and whether a refund claim under Section 11B was necessary after the substitution of Rule 173-I.

Issue (i): whether clearances made from the factories to depots, where the exact abatements were not available at the time of removal, were liable to be treated as provisional assessments under Rule 9B.

Analysis: The essential factual basis for correct valuation was not available when the goods were cleared from the factories, because the abatements depended on later sales from depots. The department itself kept the RT-12 returns open for long periods, and in one jurisdiction provisional assessment had been expressly allowed with bond and bank guarantee. In such a situation, the absence of a formal order did not prevent the assessments from being treated as provisional, since the factual matrix fell within the scope of provisional assessment.

Conclusion: The clearances were rightly treated as provisional assessments under Rule 9B.

Issue (ii): whether, on finalisation of such provisional assessments, excess duty could be adjusted against short-levied duty and whether a refund claim under Section 11B was necessary after the substitution of Rule 173-I.

Analysis: Rule 9B(5) itself provides for final adjustment of duty paid in excess against duty found short-paid. That position was reinforced by the settled legal position under the cited precedents. The later substitution of Rule 173-I did not alter this result, because Rule 173-I is procedural and operates independently of Rule 9B. The requirement of a refund claim under Section 11B therefore did not arise for giving effect to finalisation under Rule 9B.

Conclusion: Excess duty had to be adjusted against short-paid duty, and no refund application under Section 11B was necessary for the period after 20-11-96.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of the Revenue failed, while the assessees obtained relief on the continuance and finalisation of provisional assessment, with consequential recomputation, adjustment, refund, and recovery to follow on the basis of final liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the correct assessable value cannot be determined at the time of clearance and is ascertainable only later from depot sales or similar deferred data, the assessment is provisional in substance, and on finalisation the excess and short-paid duty must be adjusted under the provisional assessment mechanism without resort to a separate refund claim.

---