Deposit classification controls refund treatment where coded payments remain adjustable against future duty liability.

Amount paid through the Mumbai code was treated as a deposit, not a duty payment subject to the refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the amount remained credited to the appellant and was intended for adjustment against duty on clearances from the shifted unit, and no clearances were made from the Mumbai unit, it retained the character of a deposit until adjustment. Section 11B governs refund of duty, not refund of a mere deposit, and the claim could be considered under other applicable provisions without being barred solely for falling outside Section 11B.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount paid through the Mumbai code was a duty payment governed by the refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or a deposit refundable outside that provision.

Analysis: The amount remained credited to the appellant and was payable against clearances from the shifted unit. On the facts, there were no clearances from the Mumbai unit, and the amount retained the character of a deposit until it was adjusted towards duty liability. Section 11B applies to refund of duty, not to a mere deposit. The authority also noted that the claim could be examined under any other applicable and was not barred merely because it was outside Section 11B.

Conclusion: The amount was held to be a deposit and not a duty refund claim under Section 11B; the appellant succeeded on this issue.

---