1. Appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to order refund of the deposit of Rs. 7866.67 preferred by the appellant, liquidator of M/s. T.S. Nagaram Gur and Khandsari Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Sitanagaram.
2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri J.V.K. Raju, the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following : 3. [Order ]. - The appellant herein preferred a refund claim for a sum of Rs. 7866.67 being a deposit made by T.S. Nagaram Gur and Khandsari Sugar Mills. The mills were working under compounded levy scheme in respect of Khandsari Sugar. The factory closed sometime in 1976 and on 12-10-1977, an application for refund of this amount was made by the appellant Sri J. V.K. Raju, the liquidator. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, I.D.O.I, Visakhapat-nam by his order No. 9/83 dated 23-2-1983, rejected it as barred by limitation. When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, found that the amount paid relates to the period 22-12-1960 to 18-12-1975 whereas the claim for refund has been received by the Assistant Collector on 16-7-1982. Hence he rejected the appeal vide his order No. 108/83 (G) dated 29-7-1983. It is against this order, the present appeal before me.
4. Shri J.V.K. Raju appearing before me pleads that the amount represents a deposit made towards compounded levy and it is not in fulfilment of a payment towards compounded levy for any particular week; hence the amount should be refunded to the appellant.
5. According to Rule 92B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, a person operating under that rule has to pay a sum calculated in a particular way in full discharge of his liability for the duty leviable on his production of khandsari sugar during the period for which the said sum had been paid. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 92B indicates the manner in which the sum payable has to be determined; sub-rule (4) of Rule 92B provides that at the time of submission of the application under Rule 92C, payment is initially for a period of two weeks; thereafter, weekly payments shall be made two days in advance of the week next following.
It is also stated that the balance out of the duty deposited shall be adjusted at the end of the season, if so desired by the manufacturer who had made the deposit. As the payment for any particular week is to be made two days in advance of the week next following, the additional payment made initially assumes the character of a deposit and it is not a duty of excise, refund of which would be covered by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In this view of the matter, I allow the appeal and order consequential relief.