1986 (2) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Partial duty refund granted for specific period based on eligibility criteria met, appeal rejected otherwise.

The judge allowed a partial refund of duty amounting to Rs. 5900 for the period from 1-1-1976 to 7-1-1976, based on Notification No. 240/75 dated ... Khandsari - Refund of duty paid on Khandsari under compounded levy scheme Issues:Claim for refund of duty paid under compounded levy procedure based on Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975.Detailed Analysis:The Revision Application was filed by M/s. Vishnu Khandsari Udyog seeking a refund of duty paid under the compounded levy procedure for specific periods. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the refund based on Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975, which changed the commencement date for manufacturing operations for Khandsari units. They contended that they started operating the crusher on 29-12-1975 and the centrifugal on 8-1-1976, as per the new notification. The appellants maintained that they could not take advantage of the notification earlier due to delayed receipt. They claimed that their accounts were maintained as per statutory requirements, specifically mentioning the RG-21 account under Rule 93C(3)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, supporting their refund request for the mentioned periods.Respondent's Submission:Shri Senthivel, representing the respondent, argued that the duty was paid under the compounded levy procedure for the periods in question. He highlighted that under Notification No. 96/75, the date of crushing the sugar cane was considered as the commencement date, and the crusher started operating on 27-12-1975, not 29-12-1975. The respondent contended that there was no evidence to prove that the centrifugal started operating only from 8-1-1976. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had both found that the appellants failed to establish the actual commencement date of the centrifugal machine's operation, supporting the decision to deny the refund.Judgment and Decision:The judge examined all submissions, including the appeal memo, appellants' letter, and the respondent's arguments. It was noted that the Notification No. 240/75 dated 29-12-1975 was effective from its issuance date and did not impact the duty payment for the period from 22-12-1975 to 31-12-1975, which had already been paid correctly. However, for the period from 1-1-1976 to 7-1-1976, the new notification applied, entitling the appellants to a refund if the conditions were met. The judge found that the appellants had complied with the statutory requirements by maintaining the RG-21 account and sending a notice of production of Khandsari sugar. As the centrifugal started operating only from 8-1-1976, the judge ruled that no duty was payable for the week from 1-1-1976 to 7-1-1976. Consequently, the judge allowed a partial refund of duty amounting to Rs. 5900 for this specific period, setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) in this regard while rejecting the appeal in all other aspects.