Provisional assessment cannot defeat refund limitation unless the prescribed procedure, order and security requirements are actually met.

Refund claims filed beyond the statutory limitation period cannot be saved by a bare assertion that duty was paid provisionally. Provisional assessment is recognised only where the prescribed procedure is actually followed, including the relevant order, bond and security, and supporting evidence of such assessment. A mere reference in the return that payment was provisional does not override the limitation bar for refund claims. On the facts stated, the claims remained time-barred because the required provisional assessment process was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims filed after expiry of the limitation period could be saved on the plea that the clearances were under provisional assessment.

Analysis: The refund claims were filed beyond the statutory time limit. The appellants had not sought provisional assessment in the manner required by the applicable rules, nor was there an order for provisional assessment or the prescribed bond/security. Mere mention in the return that the duty had been paid provisionally did not establish provisional assessment. In the absence of compliance with the procedure for provisional assessment, the refund claims remained subject to the limitation bar.

Conclusion: The refund claims were time-barred and the assessee's plea based on provisional assessment failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected as the claims for refund could not be entertained beyond limitation on the facts proved.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional assessment can be relied upon only when the statutory procedure for obtaining it is actually followed and evidenced by an order and the requisite security, and a mere statement in returns does not displace the limitation applicable to refund claims.

---