Excise duty refund requires provisional assessment; later price reduction alone does not create a refund right.

A later reduction in contract price did not, by itself, entitle the assessee to refund of excise duty already paid on clearance. Refund was available only where the goods had been assessed and cleared on a provisional basis under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the absence of provisional assessment under the prescribed procedure, duty liability was determined at the stage of clearance, and a subsequent price revision could not create a refund entitlement. The question of law was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of duty merely because the sale price was subsequently reduced, when the goods had not been cleared on provisional basis under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim depended on the goods having been assessed and cleared on a provisional basis. In the absence of provisional assessment under the prescribed rule, a later reduction in the contract price did not create a right to refund of duty already paid on clearance. The Court followed the settled principle that duty liability is determined with reference to the clearance stage and that a subsequent price revision, by itself, is insufficient to sustain a refund claim.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to refund; the question of law was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent reduction in price does not justify refund of duty unless the clearance was made on a provisional assessment in accordance with the statutory procedure.

---