Judgment:
1. The appellants in this case filed a price list in Part II for supply of detergent powder to the Canteen Stores Department. The value claimed for approval was Rs. 5.50 per kg. The price list contained the following sentence : "The declared prices are the contracted prices at which the goods are to be sold to Canteen Stores Department at Ahmedabad." After the approval of the price list, the assessees cleared the goods.
Later by discussions with the buyers, the price was reduced to Rs. 5.30 per kg. The assessees issued credit notes to the buyers. They later filed revised price lists and also filed refund claims for the differential duty calculated on the difference between the approved prices and the prices actually charged. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim. The Assistant Collector held one refund claim as barred by limitation, the other claim was rejected by him on the observation that subsequent reduction in price did not entitle the assessees to a refund claim. The Collector (Appeals), in his order, observed that the later price lists in which reduced prices were shown, could not be retrospectively applied. He upheld the rejection of the refund claim resulting in the present appeal coming up before us.
2. Shri Ramesh Singh, ld. Advocate arguing for the appellants, claimed that the case did not involve retrospective application of a later price list under which reduced prices were claimed. It was his claim that where the contract price provided for escalation and where the contracted price was approved, the refund claim is capable of arising where the variation is within the limits given in the price lists. For this argument, he relied upon the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of Industrial Oxygen Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 318 as also Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 386.
3. Shri K. Srivastava, ld. S.D.R. refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 in which it was held that fluctuations in price subsequent to the clearance of the goods, would not effect liability to duty and that reduction in price subsequent to the clearance of goods on payment of duty would not effect the liability of payment of excise duty.
4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also seen the cited judgments. In the two cited judgments, quoted by the ld.Advocate, the issue involved price lists which had built in provisions for escalation and de-escalation. We have seen the price list in the case before us. The price list does not refer to any contract. It also does not show whether there was any agreement between the parties as to the variation of the contracted prices. Even if there had been some subsequent correspondence, the declarations made by the assessees in the price list in Part II would alone be material to determine the rights of the assessees with regard to the claim of refund in case of reduction in price subsequent to the approval of the price list. Since the price lists did not indicate the possibility of any such variation in contract, the law cited by the ld. Advocate would not apply. In such a situation, there would be no force in the assessees' claiming refund on the grounds that subsequently the prices were reduced. We find no infirmity in the impugned orders challenged before us. Upholding the orders, we reject this appeal.