TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of the said notification was not available. Less Charge Demand Notice was issued seeking recovery of duty short levied of Rs. 2,72,65,052/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers claimed limitation. As regards the benefit of the notification, the importers cited relevant case law. In the personal hearing, the importers made the alternative claim that the assessment under the Project Import Regulations being provisional in nature the show cause notice was without authority of law. 2.  The Assistant Commissioner passed orders relying upon the judgment of the Madras High Court [Tamil Nadu Newsprint Papers Ltd. - 1988 (36) E.L.T 272] as also on the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Jain Engineering Co. [1987 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting finalisation of the assessment was wrong in law. It was claimed that even if the assessment was taken as provisional in nature the department's action of finalising it after a period of 14 years was not permissible. In support of this claim reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Bhagwandas S. Tolani [1983 (12) E.L.T 44 (Bom.)] followed by the Tribunal in the case of Calcom Electronics Ltd. [2000 (123) E.L.T 1030 (T)] and also in the case of Bhagsons Paint Inds. (India) [1996 (88) E.L.T 400 (T)]. 6.  It was claimed that it was binding on the Bench to follow these orders and to declare the proceedings as null and void. 7.  Alongwith the appeal an application was also filed for waiver of pre-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law is well settled that where assessments are provisional, show cause notice could not issued either under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act or under the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The various judgments in which the law was so laid down have been enumerated in the Tribunal's Order No. C-II/730-38/WZB/02, dated 21-2-2002 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 161 (Tribunal)] in the case of Godrej Soaps Ltd. & Ors. v. C.C.E. 12.  Since the Less Charge Demand was in the nature of Show Cause Notice, following the case law, we find that the Commissioner's observations in the impugned Order cited earlier by us was correct in law. We also find that the directions for finalising the assessment were also legally co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt however held that inordinate delay would be fatal to the proceedings. 17. In the cited judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagsons (supra), the Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court judgment, where the demand was made in 1981 and the confirmation was made in 1990. On perusal of this order it becomes clear that the facts were entirely different from those before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In this Judgment the Tribunal admitted that there was no statutorily laid down time limit but held that it had to be a reasonable time limit. 18. The second cited judgment of Calcom Electronics (supra) was dealing with a case where the Less Charge Demand was issued on 28-7-84 and the finalisation was made in 1996. In para 6 of....