Provisional excise assessment and price escalation: refund limitation runs from finalisation, and revised price relates back to earlier clearances.

Where excise duty was paid on provisional assessment and the contract price was later escalated, refund arising on finalisation of assessment was governed by the special scheme under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 rather than the ordinary limitation approach under Section 11B. The relevant date was not the original duty-payment date, so the refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred on that basis. A price-escalation clause also made the initial price provisional until the contractual factors were finally settled; once the revised price was agreed and the price-list approved, the escalation related back to the original clearances for duty adjustment. The limitation objection was rejected and the refund claim was left for merits consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim arising out of provisional assessment and final price escalation was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the escalation in price under the contract related back to the original clearances.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim arising out of provisional assessment and final price escalation was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The assessments were provisional and, in such a situation, the refund flowing from finalisation of assessment is governed by the special scheme under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The relevant date is not the date of payment of duty where duty is subsequently adjusted on finalisation of a provisional assessment. The claim therefore could not be rejected merely as time-barred on the footing adopted by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the escalation in price under the contract related back to the original clearances.

Analysis: A price-escalation clause makes the initial price only provisional until the contractual factors are finally worked out. Once the escalated price is subsequently agreed and the revised price-list is approved, the later escalation operates in relation to the earlier clearances for purposes of duty adjustment.

Conclusion: The escalation related back to the original price arrangement.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected, and the matter was sent back for consideration of the refund claim on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid on a provisional basis and the assessment is later finalised in a price-escalation situation, the refund consequence is governed by the finalisation of the provisional assessment and cannot be defeated by computing limitation from the earlier payment date.

---