ORDER
V.K. Agarwal, Member (T)
1. M/s. Mahindra & Mahin-dra have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal dated 20th August 1993 under which the Collector (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order granting refund to the appellants.
2. The appellants under their letter dated 26-10-1999 have requested to decide the appeal on merits. We have, therefore, heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR, and perused the records. The appellants have filed a price list dated 23-3-1989 declaring their price of aluminium waste and scrap at Rs. 27,000/- per MT. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the clearances effected during the period from 4-7-1989 to 28-8-1989 on the ground that the revised price list was effective from 1-7-1989 and has been approved by the Competent Authority. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the refund claim under Adjudication order dated 16-3-1990. On appeal filed by the Department, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order holding that the provisions of Section 11A and 11B are independent of Rules 173 and 173C and that the price list has been filed by the appellants two months after the date of reduction in prices and, therefore, the question of giving it effect from a back date does not arise in view of provisions of Rule 173C. The appellants have relied upon the decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Cables v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 1997 (95) E.L.T. 386. We find that the ratio of this decision is not applicable as it dealt with a situation where the price was revised on account of price escalation clause which is not so in the present case. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as the Collector (Appeals) was right in holding that the prices cannot be revised with retrospective effect. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the appellants.