INTRON LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is before us upon remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Order C.A. No. 7090 of 2000 of 13 -1 -2003. This case was decided along with a batch of cases reported in 2003 (152) E.L.T. 39 (S.C). We have heard both sides and perused records. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, while show cause notice was issued on 21 -1 -1994, the demand was for the period March and April 1993. He submits that only that part of the demand which falls within the normal period of six months prior to the issue of show cause notice, would be within time inasmuch as the demand is not in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The learned Counsel has clarified that in making the demand for the extended period, the case made out in the show cause notice was that the assessments were provisional inasmuch as they had been made during the pendency for approval of classification list. The Counsel is not contesting the demand which is within the normal period of demand of Rs. 43,661/ -.

(2.) On the question of treating the assessments as provisional, the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee is that in the absence of any order under Rule 9B, assessments and payment of duty cannot be treated as provisional. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Metal Forgings v. Union of India reported in AIR 2003 SC 291, in this connection.

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, in particular, Para 12 which is reproduced below, makes it clear that in the absence of an order making assessments provisional, the payment of duty cannot be treated as provisional.