Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This petition has been preferred under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 to require the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer it this court for determination. The following questions of law are sought to be referred. (i) When goods are consumed in the manufacture of other goods, and whether the claimant is entitled for a refund when the question of passing on the burden of duty to the consumer is not shown? (ii) When all items are held to be a raw material for the manufacture of a final product, unless evidence has been adduced to show that the consumer will not be burdened, the claimant is not entitled to obtain a refund? (iii) Whether the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536 does not squarely apply to the case on hand thereby denying any right of refund to the claimant. 2. Reference application was preferred before the Tribunal. Tribunal refused to refer the case stating that the aspects pertaining to rate of duty, interpretation of notification No.173/92 which was claimed by the Commissioner of Customs is a matter which is required to be agitated in appeal before the Supreme Court only and reference does not arise in such mattes in terms of Section 130(1) of the Customs Act as there is a provision for filing appeal before the Supreme Court of India. Tribunal also noticed that the aspect pertaining to refund in respect of captive consumption has also been decided by the apex court and the law is settled on the issue and hence application for reference was held to be not maintainable. 3. Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997 (5) SCC 536). Counsel submitted that the claimant will be entitled to the relief’s prayed for only when he or she establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to the consumer. Counsel submitted that the claimant will be entitled to the relief’s prayed for only when he or she establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to the consumer. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly in order and in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1992 (57) E.L.T. 201) as well as in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. Union of India (1994 (69) E.L.T. 460). Counsel submitted that the Department has only presumed that indirect shifting of the incidence of duty to the customer who buys the final product because they have made it amply clear during the original proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings, in both cases the price of the final product was finalized much prior to the import of the components. Counsel also submitted that in appeal respondent has produced a Chartered Accountant’s certificate to show that in view of the pricing methodology there is no duty transferred to the customer on the final product. Further it is also stated that the decision cited is pending consideration before the apex court. In such circumstances counsel submitted that the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the reference application. 4. Respondent, Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited, is importing transformers press boards vide B/E No. 176/19-8-91 and cleared the goods on payment of duty at the rate of Rs.70,783/-. Importer filed refund application for an amount of Rs.9,328/- on the ground that exchange rate of Swiss Frank is @ 100/- Swiss Frank 7.2425 as against Rs.100/- = Swiss Frank 6.770 applied. That refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. Respondent had also preferred a claim for Rs.96,961/- on the ground that benefit under notification No.153/92 dated 26.5.1992 and 193/92 dated 14.5.1992 and the rate of duty applicable to cover and no sale and magnetic valve. After considering it was observed that the importer is liable to the grant of refund of an amount of Rs.60,600/-. Same was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Collect or of Customs. Appeal was allowed and the order of the original authority was set aside. Commissioner of Customs took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed both the appeals. Same was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Collect or of Customs. Appeal was allowed and the order of the original authority was set aside. Commissioner of Customs took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal dismissed both the appeals. Hence reference application was preferred. 5. We endorse the view of the Tribunal that issue pertains to the rate of duty and therefore reference to this court is not maintainable. Section 130 which was then in force read as follows: Sec.130. Statement of Case to High Court. (1) The Commissioner of Customs or the other party may, within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Section 129 B (not being an order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, by application is such form as may be specified by rules made in this behalf, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court. The expression “not being an order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment” is significant. The dispute in this case falls in the above mentioned category. That being so, Tribunal is justified in refusing reference to the High Court. In such circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition stands dismissed.