Per Gowri Shankar:

The appellant before us was engaged in the manufacture of heat tracing cables. These cables were initially classified under Heading 8516.00 of the tariff on which duty was payable @25%ad valorem, disallowing the claim by the manufacturer to classify them under Heading 85.40, which carries a lower rate of duty. Consequent upon an appeal filed against this order, the Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, who in de novo adjudication accepted the claim for classification under Heading 85.40.

2. The manufacturer filed a claim of refund of the duty paid by it in excess in the intervening period. The Assistant Collector found that the refund was to be granted on merits but found that the incidence of duty had been passed on by the manufacturer to the buyer of the goods. He therefore ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The manufacturer appealed this order to the Collector (Appeals). The claim before the Collector (Appeals) was that although. initially, the incidence of duty was passed on to the buyer, on a protest by him. the appellant credited the amount of excess duty to his (the buyer's) account. Therefore.