1998 (11) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand confirmation, interpretation of exemption Notification No. 91/89, unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. Duty Demand Confirmation:
The appeal arose from the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) confirming a duty demand against the appellants. The dispute centered around the import of electronic parts for music systems and radio cassette recorders, seeking the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 91/89. The disagreement stemmed from discrepancies between part numbers in invoices and catalogues.

2. Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The Collector (Appeals) allowed exemption for certain items under the exemption Notification based on the importer's explanations and descriptions of goods. However, for other items, discrepancies in part numbers led to denial of exemption. The appellants relied on Chartered Engineer certificates to support their claim that the imported items corresponded to those listed in the Notification.

3. Unjust Enrichment Issue:
The appellants argued that their refund claim did not fall under unjust enrichment as per Section 27 of the Customs Act. They cited a Tribunal judgment in support of their position. However, the Tribunal noted that the matter of unjust enrichment was still pending before the Asstt. Commissioner and could not be decided in the present appeal.

4. Judicial Review and Dismissal:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented. It found that the Chartered Engineer certificates, crucial to the appellants' case, were obtained after the impugned order and thus inadmissible. As the appellants failed to produce these certificates before the Collector (Appeals), the Tribunal did not consider them. Without additional evidence to challenge the Collector's findings, the Tribunal upheld the order and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the issue of unjust enrichment needed to be addressed separately.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the inadmissibility of crucial evidence and the pending issue of unjust enrichment. The decision highlighted the importance of timely submission of evidence and separate consideration of legal issues as per the Customs Act.