ORDER
1. These appeals of the Revenue are directed against a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals). As per the impugned order, the Learned Collector (Appeals) held that the proper officer to make an order of provisional assessment was the Assistant Collector and, therefore the orders of assessment of RT-12 returns passed by the Range Superintendent of Central Excise were unsustainable in law.
2. I am told today that above issue is only of academic interest. The Learned JDR representing the appellants reiterates the grounds of these appeals and prays for setting aside the impugned order. The Learned Consultant for the respondents submits that the proper officer empowered for making provisional assessment under the provision of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules was Assistant Collector as per notification issued under Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules. He has also brought on record a copy of the relevant notification issued on the basis of Board’s circular No. 25/87.Cx.6 dated 12/5/1987. I have perused this notification and have found that the proper officer to exercise the powers under Rule 9B(1) should be an officer of the rank of an Assistant Collector, Learned Consultant has prayed for rejecting these appeals.
3. It is fairly conceded by the Learned DR that the provisional assessment of Central Excise duty is governed by the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9B. If that be the case, the proper officer to make provisional assessment under the said provisions is an officer of Central Excise of no below the rank of Assistant Collector as per the notification cited. The provisional assessment in the instant case was admittedly made by the Superintendent and that assessment was set aside by the lower appellate authority on the ground that Superintendent had no jurisdiction to do so and that the proper office to do so was the Assistant Collector. There is nothing wrong with this decision of the Learned Collector (Appeals). The appeals filed by the Revenue are bereft of merits and the same are rejected.