ORDER 1. The controversy herein relates to the demand raised by the respondents with respect to the difference of duty arising from the final classification order dated 28.11.1989. It is necessary to state a few facts. 2. The petitioner produces, inter alia, Lyophiliser and vacuum plant. A question arose whether they constitute refrigerating machinery and air-conditioning parts and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 155/86. The petitioner's case was that they do not constitute refrigeration and air-conditioning parts and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. He submitted two classification lists--one with effect from 1.3.88 and the other with effect from 1.4.88. These two lists were approved provisionally on 1.1.89 and 21.7.89 respectively under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules subject to the petitioner's following and complying with the procedure prescribed thereunder. Subsequently, on 28.11.89, final classification order was passed which is adverse to the petitioner. As a result of the said order dated 28.11.89, the petitioner become liable to pay the duty which was demanded from him by the Superintendent's letter dated 14.1.91. The petitioner failed to deposit the difference amount whereupon the show cause notice dated 24.5.91 was issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise purporting to demand the said difference of duty u/s 11A of the Act. Under this notice, duty for the period 1.3.88 to 31.3.89 is demanded. 3. The contention raised in this writ petition is that the notice in question has been issued by the Superintendent and, if so, he cannot demand duty for a period more man six months preceding the notice. It is, therefore, said to be incompetent for the period beyond six months. 4. What we are not able to understand at present is why was a notice u/s 11A necessary. The case falls under Rule 9B. There was a provisional approval subject to execution of a bond and when the final classification is done, the manufacturer has to pay the duty, or the difference of duty, as the case may be as undertaken by him in the bond. Section 11A of the Act may not be attracted in this case. The petitioner has, however, made a categorical statement that the petitioner has not executed a provisional bond in pursuance of either of the two provisional classification orders. Section 11A of the Act may not be attracted in this case. The petitioner has, however, made a categorical statement that the petitioner has not executed a provisional bond in pursuance of either of the two provisional classification orders. The counsel suggests that it is probably for this reason that the authorities are falling back upon Section 11A. 5. The learned Standing Counsel shall verify whether the petitioner did not execute the bond, as contemplated by Rule 9B in pursuance of the aforesaid two provisional classification orders and if he has indeed executed them, what was the occasion for falling back upon Section 11A. 6. The counsel requests three weeks for obtaining the instructions. For a period of one month from today it is directed that no final orders shall be passed pursuance of the show cause notice Dt. 24.5.91 but other proceedings may go on. 7. List on 27th August, 1991. 8. A copy of this order may be furnished to the parties according to Rules within three days.