Provisional assessment under central excise requires formal invocation; refund limitation for annual turnover exemptions remained unsettled pending larger bench review.

Provisional assessment under central excise applies only when the statutory procedure is consciously invoked, including a proper provisional order and compliance with the required formalities; it cannot be inferred merely because a later refund claim arises from an annual turnover-based exemption notification. On the refund limitation question under Section 11B, the members noted conflicting authorities on the relevant date for claims linked to annual value ceilings and therefore referred that issue to a Larger Bench. The provisional-assessment point was rejected, while the limitation controversy remained open for further determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment could be treated as provisional in the absence of a formal order and bond, and whether the refund claim in a turnover-based exemption case was governed by the date of payment of duty or the close of the financial year.

Analysis: Provisional assessment under the central excise framework is a recognised procedure and depends on the statutory conditions being satisfied, including a deliberate provisional order by the proper officer. A normal assessment does not acquire the character of provisional assessment merely because a refund claim is later filed on the basis of an exemption notification linked to annual clearances. On the limitation question, the members noted conflicting authorities on the meaning of the relevant date under Section 11B for refund claims arising from notifications conditioned on annual value ceilings, and therefore found it necessary to refer the conflict for resolution by a Larger Bench.

Conclusion: The case could not be treated as one of provisional assessment in the absence of the statutory features of provisional assessment; the limitation issue was not finally decided and was referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The order under appeal was not sustained on the provisional-assessment point, but the controversy on the relevant date for limitation remained open for determination by a Larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional assessment arises only when the statutory procedure for provisional assessment is consciously invoked and completed in accordance with the Rules; it cannot be inferred merely from later uncertainty over eligibility to an annual turnover-based exemption.

---