Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessments for the relevant period could be treated as provisional in the absence of a specific order for provisional assessment and execution of the required bond, and consequently whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation.
Analysis: Provisional assessment under the excise rules requires compliance with the prescribed procedure, including a specific order permitting provisional assessment and execution of a bond or security covering the possible differential duty. Mere pendency of approval of classification lists or an endorsement on RT-12 returns does not by itself make the assessment provisional. On the facts, no order for provisional assessment was made and no bond was executed. In these circumstances, the assessments could not be treated as provisional. The demand was therefore governed by the normal limitation period applicable to duty demands.
Conclusion: The assessments were not provisional, and the demand issued beyond six months was barred by limitation. The finding in favour of the assessee was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A duty assessment is not provisional unless the statutory procedure for provisional assessment is strictly followed, including a specific order and compliance with the bond requirement.