Price variation clause supports excise duty refund where excess duty is adjusted back to the buyer and unjust enrichment does not apply.

A genuine price variation clause in a rate contract can make the original duty payment effectively provisional where the agreed price is later reduced by reference to the contract formula. On those facts, refund of excess excise duty is not barred merely because formal provisional assessment under Rule 7 was not made. Where the excess duty burden is returned to the buyer through credit or adjustment in later bills, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not defeat the refund claim. The Tribunal therefore held the refund claims maintainable and granted consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether excess excise duty paid at the time of clearance becomes refundable when the contract contains a price variation clause and the price is subsequently reduced, and whether the absence of formal provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 bars such refund.

Analysis: The agreed price under the rate contract was not final and was liable to variation based on the RBI index. The subsequent reduction in price resulted in adjustment of the excess duty burden through credit in later bills, and the Tribunal held that, on the facts of the case, the earlier line of authorities treating such transactions as effectively provisional applied. The decisions relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished because they involved cases where no comparable price variation clause or contractual basis for provisional pricing was shown. The Tribunal also held that where the excess duty collected is returned to the customer by adjustment in subsequent bills, the principle of unjust enrichment does not defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claims were maintainable and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the assessee was held entitled to refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract contains a genuine price variation clause and excess duty is passed back to the buyer through adjustment or credit, refund cannot be denied merely because formal provisional assessment was not followed, and unjust enrichment will not apply on those facts.

---