ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The two appeals arise form the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These are therefore taken up together for disposal in this single order.
2. The respondents imported certain goods which were used by them for manufacture of further goods. The claim for refund of duty paid on the inputs was found admissible but was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund by the original authority on the observation that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers. The Commissioner in the impugned order, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of solar Pesticides vs. UOI 1992 (57) ELT 201, allowed the appeal. Hence the appeals
3. The strong point made by Shri Sarkar is that the Supreme Court had reversed the cited judgment of the Bombay High Court and that therefore the orders of the Assistant Commissioner would require to be restored. Shri M.H. Patil appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents are in position to show that the burden of duty on the inputs used by them in further manufacture was not passed on to the buyers and that the respondents are in a position to demonstrate before the proper officers. He submits that in terms of the cited order of the Supreme Court also in certain appeals the apex court had redirected the subordinate appellate authority to examine this claim. On perusal of the gist of the order I find substance in his argument. The order is set aside, the proceedings are remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for him to examine the evidence placed on record by the assessees and to issue appropriate orders.
(Dictated in Court)