https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=929 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. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=929 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=929