Price variation clause does not make excise duty provisional; refund limitation runs from duty payment absent provisional assessment.

Refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are tested against the date of duty payment unless provisional assessment was properly sought and obtained under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. A price variation clause in the contract, by itself, does not make the duty payment provisional. In the absence of a provisional assessment order and compliance with the prescribed procedure, limitation runs from the duty payment date, and a delayed refund claim is time-barred. The rejection of refund was upheld on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the existence of a price variation clause made the duty payment provisional.

Analysis: The claim for refund was made after the relevant payment of duty, and the assessee had not sought or obtained provisional assessment in the manner contemplated by Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. Mere existence of a price variation clause in the contract did not, by itself, convert the assessment into a provisional one. In the absence of a provisional assessment order and compliance with the prescribed procedure, the refund had to be tested on the basis of the date of duty payment for limitation purposes under Section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred, and the rejection of refund was upheld.

---