Provisional assessment for price revision supports refund claim and defeats limitation and unjust enrichment objections.

A price variation clause in a supply contract can make duty assessment effectively provisional for refund purposes where the final price is settled later. On that footing, a refund arising from downward revision of price is not defeated by the ordinary one-year limitation under Section 11B. The Tribunal also accepted that, because only the correct duty was ultimately recoverable from buyers after the price reduction, the excess duty paid was not passed on and unjust enrichment did not apply. Refund was therefore admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from downward revision of prices was barred by limitation and hit by unjust enrichment, or whether the price variation arrangement made the assessment effectively provisional so that refund could be granted.

Analysis: The refund claim was filed long after the original duty payment, but the dispute turned on the nature of the pricing arrangement with the oil companies. Where the contract contained a price variation clause and the final price was settled only later, the Tribunal treated the assessment as effectively provisional for refund purposes. In such a situation, the claim was not defeated by the ordinary one-year limitation under Section 11B. The Tribunal also accepted the finding that, on downward revision of price, only the correct duty was ultimately recoverable from the buyers, so the higher duty paid to the Government was not passed on.

Conclusion: The refund was not barred by time limitation and unjust enrichment did not apply. The assessee was entitled to refund, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

---