Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2004 (2) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustan Lever Limited, which the original authority rejected as time barred was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent's contention that the refund could not be held as time barred for the reason that the assessment was provisional and the claim was within the stipulated limitation from the date of finalisation of the assessment was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, whereas this plea was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal from the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 2.1 Admissibility of the claim is not disputed and hence the merits of claim need not be discussed. 2.2 The respondents have pleaded that, they have complied with the provisions contained in Rule 9B of the Central Excise R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is unable to determine the correct classification of goods while filing the declaration under Rule 173B; the said assessee may request the proper officer in writing giving the reasons for provisional assessment to duty, and the proper officer may direct after such inquiry as he deems fit, that the duty leviable on such goods shall be assessed provisionally at such rate or such value (which may not necessarily be the rate or price declared by the assessee) as may be indicated by him, if such assessee executes a bond in the proper form with such surety or sufficient security in such amount, or under such conditions as the proper officer deems fit, binding himself for payment of difference between the amount of duty as provisionally assessed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....61 (S.C.) and Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 386 (T) held that, the assessments made pending approval of pricelist/clarification list were deemed to be provisional though the procedure under Rule 9B was not followed. 6. The Revenue's appeal opposes the above proposition by saying that neither the procedure under Rule 9B was followed nor the payments were provisional. It is further claimed that there was no express order of provisional assessment. 7. I have carefully examined the various case laws cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) and also the submissions contained in the grounds of appeal. 8. It seems to me that a vital aspect of the provisions contained in Rule 9B applicable ....