ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dismissing the stay application, we proceed to deal with the appeal filed by the Revenue.
2. The respondents had imported a consignment of secondhand offset printing machine from Japan in November 2005 and filed a Bill of Entry for its clearance. They had also produced a Chartered Engineer’s certificate from abroad in support of the declared value of the goods. The goods were inspected by a local Chartered Engineer at the instance of the Customs authorities. The Chartered Engineer’s report valued the goods at Rs. 95.00 lakhs, on which basis the goods were assessed to duty of Rs. 33,04,841/-, which was paid by the importer and clearance of goods obtained. However, the respondents preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment order on numerous grounds. The appellate Commissioner found that the transaction value had been rejected wrongly and that no reason whatsoever had been stated by the original authority for rejecting it. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) followed the Apex Court’s ruling in Eicher Tractors case 2000 (41) RLT 621 (S.C.). Regarding Chartered Engineer’s certificate, the appellate Commissioner followed the ratio of decisions of this Bench rendered in the cases of Anish Kumar Spinning Mills v. Commissioner of Customs, Tutkorin and V.S. Palanisamy Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, ‘Tutkorin and accordingly it was held that the rejection of the Chartered Engineer’s certificate without stating reasons was not justified. In the result, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s appeal. In the impugned order, however, he also observed that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply to a claim for refund of duty paid on imported capital goods. The present appeal of the Department is principally directed against this observation. The appellant is also aggrieved by acceptance of transaction value, but, after hearing learned SDR, we have not found adequate grounds for this grievance. The original authority had rejected the transaction value after referring to NIDB data pertaining to contemporaneous imports. It enhanced the value on the basis of local Chartered Engineer’s report, without stating any reason for rejecting the overseas Chartered Engineer’s report produced by the importer. This action has been disapproved by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Bench. In the present appeal, the Revenue has not been able to distinguish the cases of Anish Kumar Spinning Mills (supra) and V.S. Palanisamy Co. (supra) from the case on hand or to establish that the ratio of the above decisions was not otherwise applicable to the facts of the instant case. The grounds raised in this appeal do not seem to have legs to stand on insofar as the assessment is concerned. In the result, the appeal fails on the valuation issue.
3. Apparently, the subject matter of the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not involve any refund claim. The subject matter of that appeal was valuation of the goods. Hence it was not incumbent on the appellate Commissioner to make any observation or record any finding in relation to the question whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment was applicable to a claim for refund of duty paid on imported capital goods. We are told that a refund claim filed by the importer is presently pending before the original authority. It is for that authority to deal with the said question and for the assessee to place requisite materials before that authority to enable it to deal with their refund claim in accordance with law.
4. On the sole issue (Valuation) arising in this appeal, the appellant has not succeeded. The appeal stands dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)