TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8 Bills of Entry commencing from 20-11-1984 and up to January, 1986. All these Bills of Entry were for warehousing (into bond Bill of Entry) in which benefit under Notification No. 179/80-Cus., dated 4-8-1980 was claimed. This notification provides exemption to parts of any articles falling under specified headings of Chapters 82, 84, 85, 86 and 87 and meant for initial set-up or assembly of that article to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs. It is a conditional benefit requiring the recommendation of certain specified technical/administrative authorities. The said notification also prescribes execution of bond to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs till the end use has been verified by him. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the bonds executed at the time of warehousing the goods has been mentioned on each of these Bills of Entry. As per the records of the case, the said bonds to this date continue to operate as the same have not been cancelled or revoked by either side. 5. After debonding of the goods in March, 1986 for clearance for home consumption by customs, no further developments took place prior to 3-11-1986, when a SCN No. CDR/228/86/AP(I) Cus., dated 3-11-1986 was issued by the Appraising Import Department of the Custom House which raised a demand on this Bill of Entry alleging short levy of duty to the tune of Rs. 1,53,865.55. 6. The respondent replied to the notice arguing that since the goods were cleared after payment of duty on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification on ex-bonding is not finalisation as the same Bonds are cross-mentioned on these Bill of Entries. Further, the new notification has same end use conditions, whose verification is pending. The Bonds too are not revoked or cancelled. He cited 1991 (55) E.L.T. 592 in the case of PMT Tools wherein it is held that once provisional assessment is resorted to, the assessment is provisional on all counts. Therefore, no time bar is attracted. 11. Heard ld. Advocate Shri Joseph Kondianthar. He argued that as on the date of debonding the goods, Notification No. 179/80 does not exist and hence the Bonds executed under it do not survive. Therefore, the assessment on the ex-bond Bill of Entries are final as held by the ld. Collector ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Instead, the old bond was mentioned on the ex-bond bills of entry for Home consumption, because the end use conditions were still to be verified and were the same as in the earlier notification. We are of the humble opinion that merely because this procedural technicality was not ensured, it cannot be held that the provisional status expired because of the following reasons :- (a) the bonds were cross-referenced on the new Home consumption Bills of Entry; (b) the bond have not been cancelled or revoked; (c) the reassessment under Notification No. 155/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 also entailed provisionality as the end use (of same conditionality as existed earlier) was still to be verified and the re-assessment was subje....