ORDER
K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A), who confirmed the order of the Asstt. Commissioner rejecting the appellant’s refund claim for Rs. 43,455/- out of the total claim of Rs. 72,000/-. The aforesaid amount was paid under the scheme of compounded levy towards discharge of duty liability for the months Sept 95 to Nov. 95. The payment was made on TR6 challans dated 22.8.95, 28.9.95 and 14.11.96. On account of disconnection of electric supply, there was no production and hence the refund of the amounts deposited was sought. The refund claim was filed on 11.6.96 hence out of the total amount of Rs. 72,000/- the claim for Rs. 43,455/- was held as time barred.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The Commissioner (A), quoting the provisions of Section 11B, held that, the claim ought to have been filed within 6 months. In the absence of any payment under protest the claim was held as barred by limitations contained in Section 11B. Hence the Commissioner (A) also rejected the claim. Consequently, this appeal to the Tribunal.
4. The learned advocate for the appellant claims that Rule 96ZB is a complete code for assessment of duty under the compounded levy scheme. This proviso to the said rule stipulates for grant of refund in case there is a change in the rate of duty consequent to which the sum payable happens to be in excess of the revised duty liability.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. It seems that, the most fundamental thing that is missed out is the fact that provisions of Section 11B are applicable for claiming refund of duty. The duty has to be with reference to the excisable goods manufactured and cleared. The amount, the payment details of which are mentioned in para 1 above, have not been connected with any goods which the appellants have manufactured and cleared, since there is no clearance of any excisable goods, during the period involved. The payment that has been made against the TR6 challans, is only a deposits. It is a well settled legal position that the provisions of Section 11B are not applicable to revenue deposits. In Mafatlal Industries Vs. UOI reported in 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC), this position is made quite clear.
6. Besides the appellant’s submission that, the Rule 96ZB is a complete code by itself and the authorities are bound to sanction the refund suo moto in cases where there is change in the rate. Though the rule talks about rate, the quantum of payment will also be covered in the process of adjustment of duty, when the latter part of the rule talks about revised liability.
7. Since the Asstt. Commissioner has already sanctioned the part claim, there is no dispute about the refundability of the amount. Consequently in the light of discussions about I hold that, orders of the lower authorities in rejecting the part claim are required to be set aside.
8. Hence I allow the appeal and order of the lower authorities rejecting the part claim are set aside.
