Refund after price reduction fails where goods were not cleared provisionally and binding precedent already governs the claim.

A refund claim under the Central Excise Act was treated as covered by binding Supreme Court precedent, which held that a subsequent reduction in price does not alter duty liability once goods are cleared on the declared classification and price, unless the clearance was provisional or a refund arrangement with the Government existed. Because the goods were not shown to have been cleared provisionally, the later price reduction could not supply a basis for refund. On that footing, no referable question of law was found to arise under Section 35H, and certification under Section 35L(a) was also declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether any referable question of law arose for consideration under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a refund dispute where the claim was held to be covered by Supreme Court authority and the goods were not shown to have been cleared on a provisional basis.

Analysis: The claim for refund was rejected on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling in MRF, which held that a subsequent reduction in price does not affect the duty liability once goods are cleared on the declared classification and price, unless there is a provisional clearance or an agreement with the Government for refund. The Court also noted that the goods were not shown to have been cleared provisionally, and therefore later price reduction could not constitute a foundation for refund. In that view, the controversy was treated as squarely covered by binding precedent, leaving no occasion to require a Larger Bench reference or to frame a question of law for the High Court's opinion. The request for certification under Section 35L(a) was also declined on the same footing.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the petition was not maintainable for reference under Section 35H.

---