TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants herein submitted a refund claim to the adjudicating authority for refund of the amount finalized by the authority on completion of provisional assessment. The adjudicating authority after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants rejected the refund claim as time barred under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) also came to the same conclusion. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the finding of both the authorities seems to be erroneous as the entire assessment of the appellants during the disputed period from 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 was not prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of the assessees have been ordered only upto the year 1993-94 because at that time there was a system of filing price list in advance and the final price was not available at the time of approving price list. However, subsequent to the introduction of invoice based clearance system with effect from 1-4-94, the assessees have not opted for provisional assessments. If the assessees were unable to determine the value of excisable goods in terms of Section 4 of the Act on account of non-availability of any documents or any information, they should have followed the provisions under Rule 9B ibid nor produced the orders issued by the JAC for provisional assessment. Whereas in instant case, the assessees have neither followed the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consideration of the above findings, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the factual matrix in this case, as correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel. The period involved in this case is from 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995. We find from the copy of the finalized RT-12 returns, submitted by the appellant that the Range Superintendent had endorsed his remarks on the Assessment Memorandum that the assessments were provisional. We also find that the said provisional assessments continued throughout entire period of the dispute. We find that this Bench by its Final Order No. 464/2008 dated 24-3-2008 have come to the following conclusion:- "6. On a very careful consideration of the facts, we find that the price at which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. In this case, there was definitely a request for provisional assessment but the only objection is not furnishing a Bond and Bank Guarantee. The Revenue's approach in denial of provisional assessment is shortsighted because when the assessment is provisional, the duty initially paid may be less and the assessee may have to discharge the short payment at the time of finalization. If the department holds such assessments as final, then Revenue would be put to loss. When it is very clear that the initial price is subject to variation, the Revenue officers are bound to order assessments on provisional basis. Their refusal would at times endanger the revenue. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. We allow the ....