ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides and perused the case records. These four appeals relate to the same issue and are against a common order-in-appeal. Initially, there was a dispute about classification of the impugned goods, which has been settled in favour of the appellants and hence they are liable to pay duty @ 15% ad valoram instead of the higher amounts paid earlier during the period of dispute. The consequent refund has been denied to the appellants on the ground that they have passed on the extra duty burden to the customers. It is seen that the impugned goods were in the nature of waste and scrap and the same have been sold through bids at a price inclusive of duties and taxes.
2. Accordingly, I am of the view that the price charged from the customers should be taken as cum-duty-price and the duty amount at the applicable rate should be worked out from the same. If the duty amount so worked out, is less than what has been paid by the appellants, refund of the balance duty should be allowed. My view is supported by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cimmco Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jaipur – 1999 (107) ELT 246 (Tri), in which the Tribunal came to the conclusion that when the price was a lump-sum amount inclusive of all duties and taxes, it is to be understood as inclusive of duties and taxes, which are payable. In that case, the Tribunal also came to the view that the extra duty burden had not been shifted to the customer.
3. In view of my findings as above, I set aside the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities and remand the case to the original authority for calculation of sanction of the refund amount.