Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether duty could be demanded on captively consumed yarn without a provisional assessment order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The endorsement on classification lists and RT-12 returns that the assessment was provisional did not by itself make the assessment provisional. A valid provisional assessment required a proper order under Rule 9B and compliance with the prescribed procedure, which was not undertaken. The Court also found that no show cause notice was issued under Section 11A, although recovery of central excise duty had to be made through that statutory mechanism. In the absence of both a valid provisional assessment and a notice under Section 11A, the demand could not be sustained, and the bond executed pursuant to the interim court order did not independently authorize recovery.
Conclusion: The duty demand was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty cannot be recovered unless the department either validly resorts to provisional assessment under the prescribed rule or issues a notice under the statutory recovery provision; a mere endorsement of provisional assessment on returns or a bond executed pursuant to court directions is insufficient.