Provisional contract pricing supports excise refund when final tender prices fall and the claim is filed in time.

Refund of Central Excise duty was considered admissible where goods were cleared under a contract stating that prices were provisional and subject to revision on finalisation of a fresh tender. The later reduction in contract price meant the removal price could not be treated as the final sale price, so duty paid on the higher provisional value was paid in excess and became refundable. The absence of provisional assessment under Rule 9B did not bar refund, because the decisive factor was the contractual stipulation of provisional pricing. As the refund claim was filed within the period prescribed under Section 11B, the excess duty was refundable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Central Excise duty was admissible when the goods were cleared on provisional contract prices and the price was subsequently reduced, even though the assessee had not resorted to provisional assessment.

Analysis: The contract for supply specifically described the rates as provisional and subject to change on finalisation of the fresh tender. On that basis, the prices at the time of removal could not be treated as final sale prices. The later contract showed that the quantity covered by the impugned supply formed part of an ad hoc arrangement pending final price determination. The absence of provisional assessment under Rule 9B did not defeat the claim because the decisive fact was the contractual stipulation that the price was provisional. Since the refund claim was filed within the period prescribed under Section 11B, the duty paid in excess on the finally reduced price was refundable.

Conclusion: Refund of the excess duty was admissible and the rejection of the claim was not sustainable.

---