ORDER
K.S. Dilipsinhji, Member (T)
1. M/s. Vishnu Khandsari Udyog, Aurangabad have filed a Revision Application under old Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to the Government of India which has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 36-P ibid and is to be treated as an appeal to the Tribunal. When the appeal was called out for hearing on 27.2.1986 none appeared for the appellants. However, a letter dated 18.1.1986 from the authorised representative of the appellants was received explaining the facts of the case and the contentions in support of the appeal and requesting that the appeal be decided on the basis of the submissions made in the original Revision Application and the present letter dated 18.1.1986. Accordingly, I proceeded to consider the appeal and decide the same.
2. The appellants have claimed refund of duty paid under the compounded levy procedure for the period 22.12.75 to 31.12.75 and 1.1.76 to 7.1.76 on the ground that the Government of India under their Notification No. 240/75 dated 29.12.75 decided that the Khandsari unit should be deemed to commence manufacturing operations from the date on which its centrifugal starts producing sugar and not from the date on which the crusher starts operation which was the position under earlier Notification No. 96/75 dated 30.4.75. The appellants contend that they started working the crusher only on 29.12.75 and the centrifugal was working from 8.1.76. They argue that the appellants could not take advantage of the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29.12.75 because the same was received very late. They submitted that they had maintained the accounts for the Khandsari unit in the prescribed form RG-21 and this was a statutory record maintained under Rule 93C(3)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They, therefore, prayed that the refund of duty paid for the period 22.12.75 to 31.12.75 and 1.1.76 to 7.1.76 should be granted to them.
3. Shri Senthivel submitted that the appellants were working under the compounded levy procedure for the manufacture of khandsari unit. The appellants paid the compounded levy duty for the two periods under AR-8 No. 6/75 dated 27.12.75 and AR.8 No. 8/75 dated 31.12.75. Under Notification No. 96/75 the date of crushing the sugar cane was taken as the date of working. There was no dispute about this fact. The crusher started working on 27.12.75 and not on 29.12.75. The duty was required to be paid in advance. The Notification No. 240/75 dated 29.12.75 was effective from that date. There was no proof that the centrifugal was working only from 8.1.76. The Assistant Collector had correctly observed that the centrifugal normally starts operation 3 to 4 days after the crushing of the cane. Except the RG-21 account, there was no evidence in support, of the appellants’ claim that the crusher started working from 8.1.76. The Collector (Appeals) had rightly observed that the appellants could not prove the date of commencement of the operation of the centrifugal machine. Hence, Shri Senthivel prayed that the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector should be upheld.
4. I have examined the submissions in the appeal memo, in the appellants’ letter dated 18.1.76 and the arguments of the Respondent. The Notification No. 240/75 is effective from the date of issue i.e. 29.12.1975. The compounded levy procedure envisages payment of duty in advance by 2 days before the commencement of every week under Rule 92-B(4). Therefore, for the period beginning from 22.12.75 to 31.12.75 the duty due under the compounded levy system had been discharged already. The change brought by the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29.12.75 does not affect this period. Thefore, the duty for this period has been correctly paid and no refund is due to the appellants in this behalf. As regards the refund of duty for the week beginning from 1.1.76 to 7.1.76, the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29.12.75 is applicable. Since there was a delay in respect of the same, the appellants could not take advantage of it. The appellants have claimed refund of duty for this period and supported their claim with the RG-21 account. This account is required to be maintained under Rule 92-C(3)(b). Similarly, RT-12 return is also required to be filed. There is no finding by the Assistant Collector that these statutory requirements were not complied with. Therefore, it was not correct on his part to reject the appellants’ contention by presuming that the RG-21 account was maintained subsequently and that it might not represent the correct position. The appellants had sent a notice of production of the Khandsari sugar vide their letter dated 27.12.75. They have maintained the prescribed records and therefore they are eligible for the benefit due to them. Since the centrifugal started working only from 8.1.76 no duty is payable by the appellants for the week 1.1.76 to 7.1.76. In view of this finding, the appellants are entitled to the refund of duty amounting to Rs.5900/-, for this period. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) to this extent and direct that partial relief be allowed by way of refund of the duty of Rs.5900/-(Rupees five thousand nine hundred) only under AR.8 No. 8/75 dated 31.12.75 for the week 1.1.76 to 7.1.76. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.