A. INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue referred to the Larger Bench is, whether a claim for refund of duty paid should be preferred within six months of the date of payment even if the goods were supplied pursuant to a contract which contained a clause for escalation of price.

(2.) THIS reference has been made by Bench A of the Tribunal while doubting the correctness of the law laid down in Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1997 (95) E.L.T. 386 by the Bench consisting of two Members of this Tribunal to the effect that where the purchase orders contained price variation clause and the copies of the purchase orders and the contract were submitted alongwith the price list, the price agreed and declared would be provisional and that the approval granted to the price list by the Revenue would also be treated as provisional and the provisions of limitation contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act will not be attracted.

(3.) BEFORE reverting to the issue it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions of the Central Excises Act and the Rules framed thereunder regarding determination of assessable value of the goods, payment of Excise duty thereon by the assessee and subsequent maintainability of claim of the assessee for the refund of the duty on the plea of existence or non -existence of price variation clause in the contract/purchase orders.