Prospective classification circulars and strict Rule 9B compliance govern HDPE tape assessment disputes.

Clearances are not treated as provisional assessment under Rule 9B unless the statutory procedure is actually followed, including an order by the proper officer, execution of bond, and maintenance of provisional records pending finalisation; pending classification proceedings and a bank guarantee do not suffice. The Board circular dated 24.9.92 on HDPE tapes, using the word "henceforth," was held to operate prospectively and could not be applied to the earlier disputed period. The classification under heading 3920.32 was therefore not available for that past period, and the original authority's view was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the clearances were governed by provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; and (ii) whether the Board circular issued on 24.9.92 could be applied to the disputed period for classifying HDPE tapes under heading 3920.32.

Issue (i): whether the clearances were governed by provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: A provisional assessment requires compliance with the statutory procedure under Rule 9B, including an order by the proper officer, execution of bond, and clearances and documents being maintained on provisional basis pending finalization. Mere pendency of classification proceedings before a High Court and furnishing of a bank guarantee to protect revenue do not amount to provisional assessment. In the present case, no order under Rule 9B(1) was passed and the prescribed procedure was not followed.

Conclusion: The assessments were not provisional.

Issue (ii): whether the Board circular issued on 24.9.92 could be applied to the disputed period for classifying HDPE tapes under heading 3920.32.

Analysis: The earlier Supreme Court rulings on identical disputes held that the Board's circular using the expression "henceforth" operated prospectively and could not govern the past period. Since the present dispute covered August 1989 to 14.10.92 and the circular was issued only on 24.9.92, the classification for the earlier disputed period could not be fixed under heading 3920.32 on the strength of that circular. The impugned reasoning based on provisional assessment was rejected, and the original adjudicating authority's view was restored.

Conclusion: The circular did not apply retrospectively to the disputed period, and the goods were not classifiable under heading 3920.32 for that period.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the orders of the original authority were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A classification circular expressed to operate "henceforth" applies prospectively, and a clearance cannot be treated as provisionally assessed unless the statutory procedure under Rule 9B is actually followed.

---