ORDER
T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides. The Revenue is in appeal. M/s. Deluxe Exports imported goods declared as HDPE grade 267=79 of Russian origin vide invoice No. 95/057 dated 9.3.95 @ US $ 700 pmt CFT against contract No. 5042 dated 3.2.95.
2. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Group II-B, enhanced the value of the goods @ US $ 870 pmt (CIF) in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with GATT Valuation Rules, 1988.
3. On filing appeal, the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Jawahar Custom House, Nhava-Sheva, set aside the Order-in-Original and ordered refund. Hence this appeal by Revenue.
4. In the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (61) RLT 602 (SC) in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographies India Ltd., it is observed that Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11B of CEA, 1944 make it clear distinction between making or ordering refund by the proper officer and claim of refund by a person. In regard to the duty paid under protest under provisional assessment when refund is claimed, Rule 9B(5) provides for suo moto making of refund by the proper officer if on finalisation of assessment and adjustment, any sum is found due to the assessee, without limitation of time. Section 11B deals with claim for refund by any person, who has paid on his own account and this includes duty paid under protest. The judgment also dealt with unjust enrichment.
5. After going through the case records, it is felt expedient that the matter to be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to rehear the parties and dispose of the matter afresh on merits.
6. In the light of the observation by the apex Court cited above, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court 14.07.2004)