ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. The common appellant in these two appeals, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, filed price list in Part I and the same was approved by the proper officer. Thereafter they obtained sanction of the Deputy Collector to avail the benefit of exemption under Notification 80/80. Meanwhile, they had collected excise duty in respect of the clearances from the buyers but paid duty only subject to the exemption. In other words, within the limit of clearance stipulated in the notification, appellant had collected excise duty in spite of exemption and did not pay the duty amount to the department because of the exemption. For the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1982 appellant filed refund application on 17-7-1982, seeking refund of Rs. 2,77,645.85. Notice was issued to the appellant stating duty on the clearances within the exemption limit having been collected from customers without liability to pay over the same to the Government such amount remaining in the hands of the appellant represented the appellant’s profit and was part of the wholesale price and therefore to be reflected in the assessable value and the duty element has to be recalculated. It was also alleged that various amounts were due from appellant towards excise duty liabillity and these amounts will be deducted. Appellant resisted the notice on the first count but not on the second count. On recalculation of the excise duty payable and after giving adjustment to amounts due by the appellant, Assistant Collector sanctioned refund of Rs. 16,303,00. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.
2. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing but has sent a request for decision of the appeals on merits. We have heard shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.
3. The appeals are confined to one aspect, namely, redetermination of the assessable value and excise duty payable by the appellant as a result of which the amount of refund was reduced. As indicated earlier, appellant had availed the exemption subject to limit of clearance stipulated under Notification 80/80 but collected the excise duty from the buyers. This was done in spite of the fact that the appellant was not liable to pay duty on such clearances by virtue of the Notification. Therefore, this amount remained in the hands of the appellant as part of the appellant’s profit and the wholesale price. Inevitably this amount should be reflected in the assessable value and the duty amount recalculated. The procedure adopted by the Assistant Collector is lawful. We find no reason to interfere. The appeals are dismissed.