2002 (12) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the incidence of duty for which refund has been claimed and sanctioned was not shown not to have been passed on, and confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. On 1-6-2001, the Bench .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... racing cables that it manufactured and cleared between July, 1993 and March, 1994. It arose consequent on the decision of the adjudicating authority that these cables were classifiable, as claimed by the assessee in heading 85.14 under the excise tariff. The assessee had earlier been paying duty at a higher rate as applicable to heading 85.16. 4. The departmental representative tells us that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r that the eligibility to refund of the duty paid by the appellant is itself in dispute. Therefore, the question as to whether the incidence of duty has or has not been passed on is insignificant. It would arise only if and when it is finally decided that the refund is payable to the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the entire proceedings before us are at present of no significance. 6. The appeal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X