ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Kaushal Steel Rolling Mills, the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.10.1993 is under challenge. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had confirmed the view taken by the lower authorities and pending the decision by the Supreme Court in the Revenue’s appeal in the case of Calcutta Steel Indus. v. CCE (T) the assessments were made provisional. He had not decided any classification nor had made any demand in this regard. The operative part of the order of the Collector (Appeals) is extracted below–
Being aggrieved with the order, that future clearances of the product in question under sub-heading 7214.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is allowed provisionally Under Rule 9-B, the appellants have come up in appeal. The appellants claim that Rule 9-B can be restored to only in specific cases and once the classification list has been approved then the provisional clearance cannot be restored to. The appellant’s case was argued by Sh. G.S. Bhangoo, Advocate. On hearing the arguments tendered and going into depth, the facts enumerated. I hold that the appellants have no case. The classification dispute has been clearly settled by the Asstt. Collector by falling in line with the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal vide their Order Nos. 216-379/90 dt. 20.12.90. He has clearly stated that provisional assessment is restored to since the dispute is still pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I see no ambiguity and no mis-carriage of justice. In fact, this is a provisional assessment and the appellants have been hasty in coming up in appeal. Government revenue needs to be safeguarded. I hold that the Asstt. Collector has correctly restored to provisional assessment and the appeal is premature.
2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the appellants. Earlier the matter had come up on 1.11.1999 when also no one appeared for the appellants. In the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for today at and the notice was issued on 16.11.1999. The appellants are from Mandi Gobindgarh. In the written communication dated 16.11.1999, the consultant had prayed for adjournment with a request that the matter be posted for hearing along with the appeals of M/s Shiv Saraswati Iron & Steel Mills and M/s Pritam Singh Hunjan & Brothers. As we find that the matter is very old in which the Order-in-Original was passed in the year 1993, we do not find any justification for adjournment and for linking this case with other appellants whose details are not given in the consultant’s communication.
3. The operative part of the order of the Collector (Appeals) has already been extracted above. The matter was only about the provisional assessment which was resorted to by the jurisdictional authorities in view of the Revenue’s appeals filed in the Supreme Court. We do not find any infirmity in the order and as a result the appeal is rejected.