Judgment:
1. An "interim direction" dated 27.3.1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi as Order-in-Original No. 17/91 is under challenge in this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that price lists filed by the appellant during the period from July 1973 to February 1983 had been provisionally approved and assessments during the relevant period were provisional and there is a dispute regarding valuation. It appears that the Assistant Collector issued show cause notice for finalisation of provisional assessments for the entire period and the matters are pending with different authorities at various stages. Meanwhile, on 1.10.1986, Collector of Central Excise issued notice purportedly under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the period from September 1981 to February 1983 proposing demand of short paid duty and imposition of penalty. Notice was replied to raising various contentions including the contention that since the dispute regarding valuation and finalisation of assessments for the entire period, including the period covered by the show cause notice dated 1.10.1986, was pending before the Assistant Commissioner, the question of proposing demand under Section 11A of the Act would not arise. Thereupon, the Collector of Central Excise passed the impugned order. After referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.
(P) Ltd. dated 8.3.1990 and the observation of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition filed by one of the Directors of the present appellant and noticing similarity of facts in the case governed by the order of the High Court of Delhi and the instant case the Collector directed the jurisdictional Assistant Collector to finalise assessments as early as possible, using also material which may be contained in the show cause notice dated 1.10.1986 and to intimate the Collector about the completion of the provisional assessment.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant made it clear that the appellant has no grievance against the above direction.
4. The grievance is against the following sentence in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order"Thereafter this show cause notice will be taken up for adjudication".
5. According to the Learned Counsel, after finalisation of the assessments there would be nothing left for the Collector of Central Excise for consideration or decision and, therefore, this sentence in the order should be set aside. Appellants' contention that the Collector of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice or adjudicate is pending before the Collector. We do not understand the impugned order as recording a finding overruling the contention raised by the appellant that the Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the strength of show cause notice dated 1.10.1986 or as to whether after finalisation of assessments anything would be left for the Collector to decide. Therefore, the appellant cannot have any grievance. It is open to the appellant to raise these aspects if after finalisation of assessments, the Collector takes up the proceeding before him for adjudication in this matter.