Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty was admissible when the goods were cleared on a price basis later reduced, but no provisional assessment was sought under the prescribed procedure.
Analysis: The agreement contained a price variation clause, but the assessee knew of this position at the time of clearance and did not make any formal request for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The RT-12 assessments were final, and no material showed compliance with the provisional assessment procedure. The claim for refund on account of subsequent price reduction therefore failed on this ground. The matter was also held to be covered by the principle that subsequent reduction in price does not affect excise duty liability unless there is a specific arrangement with the Government to refund duty; the contrary views in other Tribunal decisions were not followed.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible, and the assessee's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The duty refund was rightly disallowed, and the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund of excise duty on account of subsequent price reduction is not maintainable unless the assessee establishes compliance with the provisional assessment procedure and a legally recognised basis for alteration of duty liability.