Provisional assessment cannot be denied on mere procedural lapses when assessable price remains variable and revenue is protected.

Provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be refused merely for want of a formal express order, bond execution, or bank guarantee where the assessable price was subject to variation. The record showed earlier provisional assessment practice, RT-12 returns reflecting provisional assessment, and procedural objections alone were treated as insufficient to deny relief. On that basis, rigid insistence on formality was held unjustified because provisional assessment protected revenue while the price remained unsettled. The denial of provisional assessment was therefore not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled to provisional assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied merely because the assessee had not followed the formal procedure of obtaining an express order, executing a bond, and furnishing bank guarantee, when the assessable price was subject to variation.

Analysis: The initial clearance price was not final and the assessee had shown that, for the earlier period, provisional assessment had been followed with bonds and security. The denial rested only on technical objections relating to the absence of a formal order and the alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Rule 9B. The record also showed that the RT-12 returns indicated provisional assessment. In these circumstances, the insistence on rigid formality was held to be unjustified, especially when the price itself was subject to variation and provisional assessment protected revenue. The cited precedent on provisional assessment and the absence of a formal request at the beginning of the year also supported the assessee's position.

Conclusion: The denial of provisional assessment was not sustainable and the assessee was entitled to provisional assessment.

---