ORDER : Civil Appeal No. 7862 of 2009 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute between the rival parties was, whether duty was deductible under Heading No.59.09, of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (as per classification list effective from 01.08.1986). The respondent throughout claimed, that the item in question fell under Heading No.59.02, where only basic excise duty was payable, and no special excise duty was payable. 3. It was for the first time, that a show cause notice dated 25.02.1993 was issued to the respondent-assessee, where under the respondent-assessee was informed that excise duty was payable under Heading No.59.09 (of the classification list effective from 01.08.1986). The respondent-assessee was called upon to pay duty under the above Heading. In compliance, the respondent-assessee paid differential excise duty by calculating the same under Heading 59.09 for the period from February,1988 to August, 1992. It is not a matter of dispute that the above issue has been settled inasmuch as, the assessee is liable to pay duty in terms of Heading No.59.02. 4. The controversy in the present civil appeal, pertains to the refund of the excess differential amount, recovered by the respondent assessee from the Excise Department, to the consumers. The issue that would arise for consideration is, whether the respondent assessee has indeed recovered the excess amount from the consumers. In so far as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, we are satisfied, that there was no question of assessee having recovered the excess amount from the consumers. This is so because, the assessee through out asserted, that so far as Tyre Cord Fabrics are concerned, the duty payable was under Heading No.59.02 of the classification effective from 01.08.1986 where under only basic excise duty was payable. In view of the above, it is obvious that the assessee did not recover any duty from the consumers under Heading No.59.09 at least till the show cause notice was issued on 25.02.1993. Accordingly, what ever amount was recovered from the assessee by the appellants, could not have been required to be refunded to the consumers. 5. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. SLP(C) NO. 35919 of 2011 6. Accordingly, what ever amount was recovered from the assessee by the appellants, could not have been required to be refunded to the consumers. 5. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. SLP(C) NO. 35919 of 2011 6. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. I.T.C.Ltd., 2005 (179) E.L.T. 15 (SC), the instant special leave petition is dismissed. S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 5331 of 2013 7. Delay condoned. 8. In view of the order passed in SLP(C) No. 35919 of 2011, the instant special leave petition is dismissed.