TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20-9-2002 in Excise Appeal No. 1244/96 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 1156 (Tri.-Chennai)] to quash the same with the consequential direction to restore the order of the second respondent-the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), No. 1, Williams Road, (Near Seva Sangam) Tiruchirappalli in Order-in-Appeal No. 298/96, dated 15-5-1996 holding that the demands of the department in the order of the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore-II division, dated 30-10-1995 as time barred. 2. The present writ petition raised the substantial question of law relating to the issue of when and under what circumstances the excise authorities could keep the assessment provisional under the prevailing statutes, namely, Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were explained in Metal Forgings v. Union of India - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) and it was held that the decision in Samrat International (P) Ltd. (supra) was given on its own peculiar facts and could not be understood to mean that till the classification list is approved, assessment framed would be treated to be provisional without following the procedure laid down under Rule 9B of the Rules. It was held : "From the above, it is clear that to establish that the clearances were made on a provisional basis, there should be first of all an order under Rule 9B of the Rules, and then material to show that the goods were cleared on the basis of said provisional basis, and payment of duty was also made on the basis of said provisional class....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... category T.I. 68. As against that when appeal was filed, the case of the petitioner was allowed by order dated 20-7-1982 holding that their application should be allowed by reversing the order of the Assistant Collector. As against that when further appeal was before the Tribunal, the learned Tribunal reversed the order passed by the appellate authority. Again aggrieved by the same, the petitioner came before this Court by filing W.P. 7211/1984 and this Court by setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal, remanded the matter for fresh consideration by order dated 25-6-1992 [1992 (62) E.L.T. 498 (Mad.)] and the Tribunal once again reiterated its earlier order by order dated 6-9-1993 [2001 (135) E.L.T. 1234 (Tri. - Del.)]. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the first respondent has issued even the provisional order dated 7-2-1983 that can never be construed or considered as compliance of any of the conditions given under Rule 9B. It was also the case of the petitioner that when the following three conditions were to be complied with by the respondent before making the demand in their show cause notice dated 15-3-1994, namely, (1) there should be an order under Rule 9B of the rules; (2) then material to show that the goods were cleared on the basis of the said provisional [order]; and (3) payment of duty was also made on the basis of the said provisiona1 classificatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y technical argument not to pay the demand as made by the respondents for the period from 3-8-1982 to 4-11-1984. (ii) The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further contended that when there was provisional conclusion reached on 7-2-1983 by the Assistant Commissioner, it is only passed on the basis of Rule 9B of the Rules. It was also properly considered by the appellate authority and the learned Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded, the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal need not be interfered with. 5. (i) This argument of the respondents cannot be espoused since the respondent has not proved either before the issuance of the show cause notice dated 15-3-1994 or before this Court that ....