Provisional assessment under Rule 9(b) survives absence of bond, and limitation runs from finalisation of duty demand.

A classification list approved expressly as provisional under Rule 9(b) remains provisional even if no provisional bond was executed, because the bond is a procedural requirement and does not negate the provisional character of the assessment. Where the assessment is provisional, any consequential duty demand is computed from the date of finalisation, not from the original clearance period, so a limitation objection on that basis fails. The operative effect is that finalisation of the provisional assessment gives rise to the recoverable demand, and the absence of a bond does not defeat that demand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment on the subsequent classification list was provisional notwithstanding the absence of a provisional bond under Rule 9(b) of the Central Excise Rules. (ii) Whether the duty demand issued upon finalisation of the provisional assessment was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment on the subsequent classification list was provisional notwithstanding the absence of a provisional bond under Rule 9(b) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The classification list effective from 28-2-1982 was approved only provisionally by the Proper Officer, who expressly directed assessment under Rule 9(b) of the Central Excise Rules. The absence of execution of a bond was treated as a procedural matter and not as a condition defeating the provisional character of the assessment. Since the respondents accepted the provisional approval and did not challenge it, the assessment remained provisional until finalisation.

Conclusion: The assessment was provisional, and the objection based on absence of bond failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand issued upon finalisation of the provisional assessment was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Where assessment is provisional, the relevant date for demand is reckoned from the date of finalisation, not from the original clearance period. As the demand arose on finalisation of the provisional assessment, the limitation objection could not succeed.

Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal succeeded because the disputed demand arose from finalisation of a provisional assessment, and the cross-objection failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where classification is approved provisionally under Rule 9(b), the assessment remains provisional despite procedural defects such as absence of bond, and the limitation period for consequential duty demand runs from finalisation of the assessment.

---