ORDER
G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 290-C.E./KNP/83 dated 9-12-83 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Rama Sugar Works (the respondents to this appeal) were engaged in the manufacture of khandasari sugar and were working under what is known as the Special Procedure for payment of Central Excise duty on a compounded basis. They deposited Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,400/- on 8-2-1978 for the week 8-2-1978 to 14-2-1978. In the mean time, the Government of India had, by Notification No. 26/78 dated 4-2-1978, reduced the rate of compounded levy from Rs. 4,400/- per week to Rs. 2,200/- per week. Accordingly, the respondents filed a claim for refund of the excess amount paid, namely Rs. 2,200/-. This claim was received by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 3-10-1978. He dismissed the claim by order dated 9-2-1979 on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Central Excise Rule 11 since, it had been submitted after the statutory limitation of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. He rejected the respondents’ contention that the said limitation was not applicable and that under Central Excise Rule 92B the proper officer was obliged to return the excess amount. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the respondents’ contention and set aside the Assistant Collector’s order. It is this order-in-appeal dated 9-12-1983 that the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, has challenged in the present appeal.
3. The ground put forth in support of the appeal is that the limitation prescribed in Central Excise Rule 11 applies to the instant case of refund of excess compounded levy also.
4. We have heard Shri L.C. Chakraborty, DR, in support of the appeal. He reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal. The respondents were not represented in the Court.
5. We have considered the matter carefully. The proviso to Central Excise Rule 92B (which is relevant for the present purpose) reads as follows :-
“Provided that if there is an alteration in the rate of duty for in the limit of exemption, or both, the sum payable shall be recalculated on the basis of the reduced rates or exemption limited, or both, from the date of alteration and liability for duty leviable on the production of Khandasari sugar from that date shall not be discharged unless the differential duty is paid; should however, the amount of duty so recalculated be less than the sum paid, the balance shall be refunded to the manufacturer.
It may be seen that the requirement of refund of the excess duty paid over the recalculated amount of duty in the event of a reduction in the rate of compounded levy, is mandatory. Note the use of the word shall. Therefore, whereas in the ordinary course the assessee is expected to make a claim for refund of duty on the ground that such duty was not payable by him, hi terms of Central Excise Rule 11, in so far as excess payment of compounded levy is concerned. Rule 92B makes it obligatory on the part of the Central Excise Authority to refund the excess amount paid in the event of alteration in the rate of compounded levy without the assessee having to make a claim for the purpose. We are of the opinion that in view of the specific phraseology used in Rule 92B, the requirement in Rule 11 that the assessee shall make a claim within 6 months from the date of payment of duty, has no application to cases of excess payments of compounded levy which, in terms of Rule 92B, are obliged to be returned to the assessees without any claim being made therefor. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal.