TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity had demanded the interest and imposed penalty on the respondent herein on the ground that for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08, the respondent had cleared final products to their sister concerns on provisional basis and subsequently on his own paid the differential duty. The adjudicating authority's demand for the interest is on the ground that the assessments were provisional. The first appellate authority on an appeal set aside the order recording that there was no formal assessment procedure followed as per provision 7(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue is stating that respondent has executed at B(1) point and this is second round of litigation. It is also stated in the grounds that for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2008 In all the said letters it was cited that the assessments were finalized for the various years i.e. from 2004-05 to 2007-08, consequent to the orders passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-I Commissionerate for provisional assessment vide OIO No. 73/2003-04 (RP) dated 29.04.2009. However, from the documents submitted by the appellant, it is observed the above order was contested by them and CESTAT vide Final Order No. 601/2005 dated 19.04.2005 had remanded the issue back to the Commissioner for de-novo consideration. It was finally decided by the Commissioner in favour of the appellants vide OIO No.15/2007-08 (RS) dated 10.09.2007. Thus the OIO No.73/2003-04 (RP) which the department was relying throughout as provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as provisional assessment arises Impugned order sustainable. [2005 (182) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.); 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) followed]. [para 4]. The circumstances of the above case are akin to the present issue. Though the appellant were declaring that the goods were being cleared to their sister concern was on provisional basis, there was no formal order from the Department that the assessment was being done on a provisional basis and with the procedure set forth under Rule 7 of CER 02 not being followed, the orders passed by the adjudicating authority demanding interest and penalty has no validity. As discussed above, Department was also relying on an order of the Commissioner which was issued for a different purpose and which was not in f....