ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from order in appeal No. 185/94 dated 25.3.1994 by which the Commissioner held that refund in the cases before him does not arise. The reason given is that the appellants had not denied that their refund claim certain duty element was not included in their contract prices. He has also taken a view that the order passed by Assistant Collector for crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund is justifiable and reasonable.
2. The appellants are not present. On the last date of hearing the representative of the appellants was present and took the hearing date. Learned JDR Shri S.F. Rao submits that the issue with regard to the credit of refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund is justifiable, as the appellants had submitted of not having passed on the element of duty to the customers. There (sic) prayer that they would refund to consumers at a future date is not sustainable in terms of Judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Addison as . The prayer made by the appellant has been dealt with in the cited judgment, therefore, the ratio would apply, and the appeal is required to be rejected. On due consideration, we noticed that both the authorities had taken a consistent view that the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the duty element has *(not) passed on to their customers. Therefore, the finding given is sustainable. Further, in the cited Judgment the Tribunal after due consideration has allowed the revenue appeal. In that view of the matter we do not find any merits in this appeal and hence reject the same.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court).