Depot sale price after removal cannot support excise refund where duty was correctly paid on the removal price.

Duty on excisable goods remained payable with reference to the price prevailing at the depot at the time of removal from the factory. The 1996 amendment to Section 4, which treated depots as places of removal from 28 September 1996, did not change that principle or permit reassessment on the basis of a later lower depot sale price. A subsequent resale at a lower price therefore could not support a refund claim. The refund application was not maintainable, and rejection of the refund claims was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible on the ground that the goods, sold from depots after removal from the factory, fetched a lower price than the price adopted for duty payment at the time of removal.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act made depots the places of removal from 28-9-96, but it did not alter the rule that duty remained payable with reference to the price prevailing at the depot at the time of removal from the factory. The subsequent depot sale price could not form the basis for reassessment or refund. The view taken by the lower authorities was consistent with the legal position already affirmed on the same point.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and the rejection of the refund applications was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has been correctly paid on the price applicable at the time of removal, a later lower resale price from the depot does not entitle the assessee to refund.

---