Provisional assessment under Central Excise rules requires a formal request and order; bond and undertaking alone do not validate demand notices.

Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied only where a manufacturer sought provisional assessment pending complete information or test results, and the proper officer made an order for such assessment. On the facts, the goods were assessable at a fixed rate, no request for provisional assessment was made, and no provisional order was passed; a bond and undertaking to pay differential duty did not substitute for the statutory procedure. Because the demand notices were expressly issued under Rule 9B, the absence of a valid provisional assessment meant they could not be sustained under Rule 9B(5). The notices and confirming letters were therefore held invalid and quashed to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notices could be sustained as demands under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when no provisional assessment had been made under that rule.

Analysis: Rule 9B applied only where assessment involved two or more alternative bases and the manufacturer requested provisional assessment at the lower or lowest applicable rate pending supply of complete information or test results. On the facts found, the goods were liable at a fixed rate and there was no request to the proper officer, no order for provisional assessment, and no adherence to the statutory procedure contemplated by the rule. A mere undertaking to pay any differential duty and the execution of a bond did not by itself amount to a provisional assessment under Rule 9B. Since the notices were expressly issued under that rule, the absence of a valid provisional assessment meant that the notices could not be justified under Rule 9B(5).

Conclusion: The notices and the confirming letters were invalid and were quashed in so far as they were issued under Rule 9B.

---