https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105565 Where the supply contract expressly made the price provisional and liable to revision on finalisation of tendered rates, the price at removal could not be treated as finally fixed for excise purposes. Failure to use provisional assessment under Rule 9B did not change the contractual position that the contract price was not final. As the refund claim was filed within the limitation period under Section 11B, excess duty paid after the price reduction was refundable. The refund of duty paid in excess was therefore admissible. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:25:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105565 Where the supply contract expressly made the price provisional and liable to revision on finalisation of tendered rates, the price at removal could not be treated as finally fixed for excise purposes. Failure to use provisional assessment under Rule 9B did not change the contractual position that the contract price was not final. As the refund claim was filed within the limitation period under Section 11B, excess duty paid after the price reduction was refundable. The refund of duty paid in excess was therefore admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105565