SRF LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. The question to be decided in this case is whether the assessment for the impugned period from 01.03.86 to 28.02.87 can be held to be provisional or not, and consequently whether the demand of duty confirmed against the appellants is sustainable or not.

(2.) It is the case of the department that the appellants filed classification list in the year 1986, classifying the impugned goods under sub -heading 5905.20, which was approved provisionally as there was dispute regarding classification of the product. Accordingly, the relevant RT -12 returns were also assessed provisionally. The appellants letter dated 26.09.86 also clearly indicated that the assessment was provisional. The case of the appellants, on the other hand, is that the proper officer never issued an order under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, directing provisional assessment and executing the necessary B -13 bond. The lower appellate authority has held that the assessment for the impugned period 01.03.1986 to 28.02.87 was provisional leading to this appeal.

(3.) Rajiv Mardia v. CCE, Indore : 2001 (129) ELT 334 (Tri. -LB)