https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45584 Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied only where a manufacturer sought provisional assessment pending complete information or test results, and the proper officer made an order for such assessment. On the facts, the goods were assessable at a fixed rate, no request for provisional assessment was made, and no provisional order was passed; a bond and undertaking to pay differential duty did not substitute for the statutory procedure. Because the demand notices were expressly issued under Rule 9B, the absence of a valid provisional assessment meant they could not be sustained under Rule 9B(5). The notices and confirming letters were therefore held invalid and quashed to that extent. en-us Thu, 23 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:21:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45584 Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied only where a manufacturer sought provisional assessment pending complete information or test results, and the proper officer made an order for such assessment. On the facts, the goods were assessable at a fixed rate, no request for provisional assessment was made, and no provisional order was passed; a bond and undertaking to pay differential duty did not substitute for the statutory procedure. Because the demand notices were expressly issued under Rule 9B, the absence of a valid provisional assessment meant they could not be sustained under Rule 9B(5). The notices and confirming letters were therefore held invalid and quashed to that extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45584