Full Judgment
3. The contention of the appellants is that the value was enhanced without any evidence. The Revenue is not relying any import made by any other importer or on the basis of any price list etc. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Sales (India) v. C.C., ICD, TKD, New Delhi, 2004 (91) ECC 682 (Tri.). 4. The contention of the Revenue is that, before the Adjudicating authority, the appellants accepted the price enhanced by the Customs. Therefore, now they cannot challenge the value aspect of the imported goods. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, 2001 (73) ECC 206 (T) : 2001 (128) ELT 143 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of M/s. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs Nhava Sheva, 2004 (97) ECC 770 (T) Tribunal Final Order No. 1001/04-NB-A dated 4.8.2004. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC). We have gone through the case law relied upon by the Revenue, we find in the case of Vikas Spinners v. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow, the goods were examined in the presence of importer and it was found that importer has mis-declared the goods by showing old and used garments, whereas part of the consignment were found not as per declaration. In these circumstances, the value has enhanced and accepted by the importer. In the case of M/s. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva (supra), the imported goods were examined by the experts in the presence of Exporter and, in view of the expert report, the importer accepted the enhanced value of the goods. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v.Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, set aside the finding of the Tribunal, where the Tribunal held that the onus is on the Revenue to show that the goods in question are parts of the Chilling Plant as the Revenue fail to show, therefore, the goods in question, cannot be said to be parts of the plant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the assessee was accepted the goods in question, are parts of Chilling Plant, hence the findings of the Tribunal are set aside. The facts of the present case are different from the facts relied upon by the Revenue. There is no expert opinion or any import by another importer mentioned in the Adjudication order for enhancing the value of the goods in question. The only base is the price prevalent in the International Market but for this also, there is no evidence regarding at what price the goods are traded in the International Market. The Tribunal in the case of Mohan Sales (India) v. C.C., ICD, TKD, New Delhi "We have perused the records and have heard the learned DR. A perusal of the records of the case makes it clear that transaction values have been rejected and the goods assessed at enhanced value.
No reason for the rejection of the transaction value or enhancement of value has been indicated by the assessing authority. It is well settled that transaction values constitute assessable value under the Customs Act. If the goods have to be assessed at a different value, the transaction value has to be rejected first based on the legally permissible grounds as indicated in the Valuation Rules. The assessee should also be put on notice that their transaction value is being rejected for the stated reasons and goods are proposed to be assessed at a higher value. The circumstances that permitted such rejection and the alternative basis for fixing assessable value are specified in the Valuation Rules themselves. No such legally permissible steps are found to be taken in the present case. The assessing authority has not passed any order indicating the reason for rejecting the transaction value or fixing the value at higher level. The Commissioner (Appeals) also has not indicated any reason warranting assessment at higher value except to state, "Since the value of the goods declared by the appellant appeared to be on lower side, these Bills of Entry were assessed finally after loading the value as per the prevalent international market price, market enquiry etc." The order does not at all enhanced price in "international market place". No care has been taken to ascertain the relevant particulars and to incorporate them in the order. The orders are clearly unsustainable since they lack any basis. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the appeals are allowed." 5. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.