ORDER
Shri S.L. Peeran (oral)
1. Both these appeals have been filed by the same assessee importer against the common Order-in-Appeal NO. 1487 & 1511/96 dated 3.9.96 rejecting the claim of the appellant to import tools and gauges as covered by the Accessories (condition) Rules, 1962 and also the benefit of concession under customs notification No. 169/90 dated 3.5.90 which allowed concession to cucumber. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that it does not cover the tools & gauges. Appellants after having imported the capital goods filed refund claims in respect of spares tools and gauges. The two separate Orders-in-Original passed by them are cryptic orders. The first order passed by Shri M. John Alexander in OIO No.S.25/1489/91 dated 25/3/96 merely states that appellant did not produce the documentary evidence regarding unjust enrichment and rejected the claim as unsubstantiated, while the order of Shri B. Hareram, in OIO No.S.25/1492/91 dated 25.3.96 also is cryptic order without any discussion and he has held that the item namely tools, gauges are not parts/accessories without giving resaonings and dealing with the entire material produced by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have remanded the matter to the authorities for de novo consideration as appellant had taken up larger number of grounds and produced several material and evidence to support their case. However, the rejection of the entire claim is in violation of principles of natural justice and in that view of the matter.
2.Ld. Advocate Shri S. Radhakrishnan submits that either appeals be heard on merits or in the alternative, matter could be remanded for de novo consideration. He refers to the technical write up filed by the appellant, contract of sale, invoices, clarification by the supplier, catalogue and also all other material which were already before the authorities. Yet, they have rejected as unsubstantiated which was not justified. He further submits that the appraiser had got the Bill of Entry amended to separate the value of spares, tools and gauges from the main machine though the Accessories (Condition) Rules required a combined declaration for the purpose of value. He submits that there is clear violation of the Accessories (Condition) Rules and also the same has not been properly looked into.
3. Ld. DR Shri S. Arumugam submits that although both the Orders-in-Original are not in detail, however the Commissioner (Appeals) has looked into the matter and given a finding which would be sufficient for the purpose of deciding both the appeals. He submits that they themselves had produced break-up value for spare parts tools and gauges, However, for the purpose of Accessories (Condition) Rules, the entire value has to be given since they have themselves given the break up value, therefore, the assessment was done on merits which is justified and correct in law.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the orders, we notice that both the Orders-in-Original are cryptic and Non-speaking orders. Both the Assistant Commissioners have give one line order against the several documents and submissions made by the importer. The original authority is required to have examined the material and submissions made by the importer appellant and given a detailed order. Non-giving of such an order has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore the Commissioners concerned have not dealt with the matter without going into the details and specific of the arguments raised and without any finding recorded in OIO, which is violative of principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are required to be set aside and matter remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. The Original authority shall examine the issue in the light of entire material evidence and submissions made by the importer including the plea that spares, tools and gauges are accessories as declared by them in Bill of Entry in terms of various documents produced. The claim for the verification should also be re-examined in the matter. As the matter is an old one, the original authority shall expeditiously dispose of the matter, after granting hearing to appellants within a period of five months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is allowed by remand.
(Pronounced and Dicated in open court)