GOLDEN IRON AND STEEL FORGINGS Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Examined the records and heard both the sides.

(2.) The appellants, who are engaged in job works like shaping, machining, forging, drilling etc., imported a second -hand machinery in the year 1993 for their captive use. The assessing authority rejected the declared value of the goods and assessed the same to Customs duty at an enhanced value. The goods were cleared on payment of such duty. But, subsequently, they questioned the enhancement of valuation, which issue ultimately ended up in an appeal before this Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed that appeal and set aside the enhancement of value. In its order, the Tribunal observed that the appellants would be entitled to consequential relief as per law.

(3.) In the present appeal, the appellants submit that the question of unjust enrichment did not arise in their case inasmuch as they were the ultimate consumers of the subject goods and had not passed the burden of duty to any other person. In order to establish that they did not pass the burden of duty on the imported capital goods to any other person, the appellants produced their bill book before the Commissioner (Appeals) but, according to the appellants, the lower appellate authority did not apply its mind to the documentary evidence. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the learned Consultant for the appellants today submits that the lower authorities erroneously applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Solar Pesticides case 2000 (68) ECC 25 (SC) : 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) to the appellants' case. He submits that the Apex Court's ruling is applicable only to a case involving captive consumption of duty -paid. Inputs for manufacture of intermediate products. The decision of the Court is not applicable to a case like that of the appellants in which the claim is of customs duty paid on imported capital goods ultimately consumed by the claimant The doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to such a case, learned Consultant submits,