Retrospective price revisions cannot reopen central excise duty already cleared, and later credit notes do not defeat unjust enrichment.

A revised price declaration filed after clearance of goods operates only prospectively and cannot reopen the duty position for earlier removals. Where the assessee did not seek provisional assessment, the original duty basis remains in place for the cleared goods. Post-clearance credit notes do not, by themselves, rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment under section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because duty incidence is treated as having been passed on at the time of clearance. On that reasoning, refund under section 11B is not available on the strength of a retrospective price revision alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of excise duty on the basis of a revised price declaration filed retrospectively and whether issuance of credit notes after clearance rebutted the bar of unjust enrichment for the refund claim and interest.

Analysis: The price declaration under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was a statutory advance declaration meant to reflect the price and duty particulars at the time of clearance. The revised declaration filed long after removal of goods could operate only prospectively and could not reopen the duty position for earlier clearances. The assessee did not opt for provisional assessment under Rule 9B. The Court also held that subsequent issuance of credit notes did not alter the fact that duty incidence had already been passed on at the time of clearance and therefore did not displace the statutory presumption under section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The cases relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on facts and the refund claim could not be sustained under section 11B.

Conclusion: The refund claim and the consequential claim for interest were not admissible and the Revenue's appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A revised price declaration filed after clearance of goods is effective only prospectively, and post-clearance credit notes do not, by themselves, rebut unjust enrichment or justify refund of central excise duty already passed on.

---