Central excise authorities cannot issue provisional assessment orders when assessee fails to exercise Rule 7 option

CESTAT Mumbai held that central excise authorities cannot issue provisional assessment orders suo motu when an assessee fails to exercise the option under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 vests the option exclusively with the assessee to decide assessment finality for monthly returns. Non-exercise of this option means the assessment becomes final, and any short-paid duty must be recovered under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities cannot deem clearances as provisional without the assessee's explicit option. The assessee's appeal was allowed while the Commissioner's appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional Assessment of Goods
2. Authority to Order Provisional Assessment
3. Compliance with Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
4. Determination of Assessable Value
5. Consistency in Appellate Decisions
6. Recovery of Differential Duty

Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional Assessment of Goods:
The appellant, M/s Finolex Cables Ltd, challenged the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise's directive to assess goods cleared from their Pimpri factory to other undertakings on a 'provisional' basis for the year 2012-13. The appellant contended that the provisional assessment was unwarranted as they had been following a practice of revising the assessable value based on the cost of production at the end of each year and paying any additional duty along with interest.

2. Authority to Order Provisional Assessment:
The appellant argued that the provisional assessment cannot be ordered suo motu by the Assistant Commissioner in the absence of a request from the assessee. The first appellate authority initially upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order, stating that the competent authority could decide on provisional assessment in the interest of revenue if the assessee failed to opt for it.

However, in a similar case involving 'polyvinyl chloride compound' cleared from their Chinchwad unit, the first appellate authority took a contrary view, stating that Rule 7 does not provide for the Department to issue directions for provisional assessment suo motu. Instead, the Department should call for necessary records for issuing a demand for differential duty.

3. Compliance with Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, clearly states that the option for provisional assessment is vested only in the assessee. The Tribunal found that the impugned order incorrectly interpreted the rule by suggesting that the jurisdictional central excise authorities could unilaterally decide on provisional assessment. The rule requires the assessee to request provisional assessment in writing, and the Assistant Commissioner may then allow it based on the provided reasons.

4. Determination of Assessable Value:
The appellant had been determining the assessable value of goods cleared to their other units based on the cost of production at the end of each year. This practice was consistent with Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The Tribunal noted that non-exercise of the option for provisional assessment implies that the assessment is final, and any short-payment of duty should be recovered under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

5. Consistency in Appellate Decisions:
The Tribunal highlighted that in similar disputes for earlier periods, the first appellate authority had set aside orders for provisional assessment, and such decisions were upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions, emphasizing that the Department cannot resort to provisional assessment suo motu and must follow the procedure laid out in Rule 7.

6. Recovery of Differential Duty:
The Tribunal concluded that the jurisdictional authority's only available option was to determine any short-payment of duty and proceed with recovery under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since there was no allegation of resort to recovery on record, the submission of the Learned Authorized Representative regarding the appellant's resistance to Rule 7 was deemed irrelevant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of M/s Finolex Cables Ltd. It held that the central excise authorities cannot deem clearances to be provisional without the assessee's request, and any short-payment of duty should be addressed through recovery procedures. The appeal of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, was dismissed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 03/06/2024)

---