JUDGMENT
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The appellants herein have imported 7500 sheets of paper phenolic single sided copper clad laminate vide Bill of Entry dated 31-10-96. The B/E was assessed on merit as importer did not claim benefit of any notification at the time of clearance of the goods. The duty was also deposited by them. They claimed re-assessment by seeking benefit of Notification No. 63/95-Cus. The adjudicating authority granted the benefit of Notification; however, since the importers did not produce any evidence to show that they had not passed on the duty burden to their customers, he sanctioned the refund claim but ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under the provisions of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that although, there is an averment made orally before us that relevant documents were filed by the importers before the lower appellate authority to substantiate their plea that they had not passed on the duly burden to others, there is nothing on record to show that there is any evidence submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals). Even in the appeal memorandum what was submitted by the appellants is the end use certificate. The end use certificate would be relevant only for the purpose of considering whether the Notification benefit is available and the benefit was given to them by the adjudicating authority. Even before us, there is no material either in the form of pricing data or otherwise which would justify the remand of the matter as prayed for by the Id. Counsel for the appellant. Since the presumption that the duty burden has been passed on by the importer has not been rebutted by them, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.