TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessments for the period between 1990-91 and 1993-94 were not provisional and that central excise authorities were barred by limitation from determining any differential duty liability for recovery. The appellant, as an assessee under Central Excise Act 1944, was clearing their products to their stock depots and discharging duties of central excise at factory gate though the final price was determined only at the time of disposal of goods from the stock depots. In the pricelists filed for the relevant years, the appellant had claimed certain abatements which had been considered by the lower authorities during the earlier round of litigation with the sole remaining points finalised by the Tribunal during the former round; however, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Glass & Industries Ltd [2005 (182) ELT 12 (SC)] and of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal v. Presvels Private Limited [2015 (329) ELT 347 (Tri-Del)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem v. Tan India Ltd [2006 (206) ELT 863 (Tri-Chennai)] and Indian Telephone industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calicut [2006 (201) ELT 177 (Tri- Bang)]. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has, in Bhansali Engineering Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2000 (121) ELT 280 (T)], held that no order of provisional assessment can operate retrospectively and that the Central Board of Excise & Customs has, in circular no. 13/90-CX.6 dated 25th May 1990, mandated the prerequisite of order under rule 9B of Central E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eatment. 5. It would appear from the facts of the case that the appellant had made certain claims for abatement in the prices charged for sale from the various depots across the country as not related to manufacture and therefore to be excluded from the assessee value at the factory gate. It would also appear that the appellant had made a number of references to the jurisdictional authorities which have been discarded in the orders of the lower authorities. The primary contention of the appellant in these proceedings is that, in the absence of explicit noting of provisional assessment and the various securities attached to such assessment, there can be no provisional assessment and, consequently, any demand beyond the normal period of limi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal and subject to the result of the final approval by the officer concerned. This is the procedure prescribed under Rule 9B except for the circumstance that no bond as provided in Rule 9B is required in a case where the personal ledger account is maintained for the clearance of the goods, since there is always a balance in the account current sufficient to cover the duty that may be demanded on the goods intended to be removed at any time. In these circumstances, the clearance of goods made by the appellant between 1st April and 3rd of June, 1985 were in accordance with the procedure for provisional assessment. In such a situation clause (e) of para (B) of the Explanation under Section 11B will be attracted. In this case the RT-12 Return ....