ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. When the appeal came up for hearing on 5.11.1997, appellant moved an application for transfer of the appeal to Madras Bench or in the alternative for an adjournment. Appellants representative also made such request. We adjourned the appeal to this day. There is no representation today. There is no further request for transfer. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.
2. The original controversy was whether the value of photocopier machine manufactured and cleared by the appellant would include the value of Selenium Drum and Additional Paper Tray. The adjudicating authority held against the assessee. The Collector (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee. Consequently the assessee moved for refund of excess duty paid amounting to Rs. 8.18,950. The Assistant Collector rejected refund of Rs. 1,61,386.50. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.
3. The appellant has no case that the benefit of refund had been passed on or would be passed on. In the circumstances the amount of refund must be treated as part of wholesale price and profit in the hands of the assessee and re-determination of assessable value and re-calculation of duty would be necessary. See decision of Amur Dye Chem Ltd. . This was what the Assistant Collector did in this case. We therefore find no ground to interfere.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
