ORDER 1. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 337431 dated 18-7-2001 covering one second-hand automatic transfer honing machine with three honing stations. The declared value of the said goods was DM 150,000 equivalent to Rs 31,12,500 which was cleared on the basis of supplier's (Robert Bosch GMBH Germany) Invoice No. W47408 dated 7-6-2001. Accordingly, on the declared assessable value of Rs 40,88,835 in CIF terms (based on the invoice value) assessment was sought by the assessee under Sub-Heading 8460.40 @ 25% basic customs duty with CVD @ 16% (8460.00) and SAD 4%. 2. The authority-in-original viz. the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, rejected the declared value/transaction value by observing thus: "... Hence the foremost requirement for accepting the transaction value/invoice price under Section 4(1) that it should be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, is not fulfilled in this case." 3. The authority-in-original then proceeded to examine the applicability of Rules 5 to 8 sequentially in order to determine the transaction value/assessable value of the goods and determined the assessable vatue at Rs 1,35,90,307.54 in FOB terms in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (for short "the Rules") which provides for the residual method of determining the assessable value. 4. The assessee, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which came up for hearing before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The appellate authority, by its order dated 31-8-2001, relying upon a judgment of this Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs!, accepted the appeal, wherein it was held that "the transaction value in Rule 4 of the Rules is limited to the transaction in question and that this mandate is only subject to certain exceptions specified in Rule 4(2)". It was further held that the term "ordinarily sold" in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 implies the exclusion of extraordinary or special circumstances as detailed statutorily in Rule 4(2). 5. The Commissioner also relied upon a judgment of this Court (sic the Tribunal) in Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs2, wherein it was held that: (ELT pp. 368-69, para 13) "13. ... Section 14 (read with Rule 4) recognises the primacy of transaction value, whether it be new goods or second-hand machines. ... 5. The Commissioner also relied upon a judgment of this Court (sic the Tribunal) in Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs2, wherein it was held that: (ELT pp. 368-69, para 13) "13. ... Section 14 (read with Rule 4) recognises the primacy of transaction value, whether it be new goods or second-hand machines. ... law does not allow rejection of transaction value under Rule 4 by ab initio application of Rule 8; that would be putting the cart before the horse. The principle involved is that the 'actual' cannot be superseded by the 'deemed', unless the 'actual' is first rejected in terms of Section 14 read with Rule 4 ibid." The Commissioner thus held that the question of rejection of the transaction value and determining the value under any of the rules subsequent to Rule 4 will not arise at all. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the appellate authority, the Department went in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). The Member (Judicial) by his order dated 29-7-2002 rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and Member (Technical) by his order dated 7-8-2002 allowed the appeal. In the light of the difference of opinion, the matter was placed before a third member of die Tribunal who allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the first appellate authority and restoring that of the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, in view of the majority decision of the Tribunal, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed thus rejecting the transaction value as determined by the first appellate authority by using the depreciation method of calculating the transaction value of the goods. 7. According to Mr Joseph Vellapally, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assessee, the decision of the Tribunal runs counter to the principles laid down by this Court in Eicher Tractors1 and the subsequent decisions of this Court in ValdUal Dairy International Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs; Tolin Rubbers (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs; Commr. of Customs v. South India Television (P) Ltd. and an unreported recent judgment of this Court in Commr. of Customs v. J.D. Orgochem Ltd. 8. Mr K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. of Customs; Tolin Rubbers (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs; Commr. of Customs v. South India Television (P) Ltd. and an unreported recent judgment of this Court in Commr. of Customs v. J.D. Orgochem Ltd. 8. Mr K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with the determination of the method of valuation, clause (i) whereof provides that the value of imported goods shall be the transaction value. Clause (ii) thereof provides that if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of clause (i), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Rule 4 provides that: "4. Transaction value.-(l) The transaction value of imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these Rules." As per sub-rule (2) of the said Rule the transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule (1) shall be accepted subject to the exceptions provided therein. 10. Admittedly Rule 9 of the Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. In Eicher Tractors1 which has been relied upon by Mr Vellapally appearing for the assessee as also by the first appellate authority, it has been held that the transaction value has to be accepted subject to the exceptions contained in Rule 4(2) of the Rules by recording special or extraordinary reasons. Neither the adjudicating authority nor the Tribunal has recorded such reasons. Instead of referring to all the above decisions of this Court, we may refer to a decision of this Court in South India Television (P) Ltd.5 wherein it has been held: (SCC PI'. 379-80, paras 11-12) "11. ... Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming provision. It talks of deemed value. 379-80, paras 11-12) "11. ... Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming provision. It talks of deemed value. The value is deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or fo'r offer for sale. Therefore, what has to be Seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation i.e. at the time when the goods reach the customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. 12. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. Therefore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time. Unless the evidence is gathered in that regard, the question of importing Section 14(1-A) does not arise. In the absence of such evidence, invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction value. Invoice is the evidence of value. Casting suspicion on invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value of imported goods. Undervaluation has to be proved. If the charge of undervaluation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer. If the Department wants to allege undervaluation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence." 12. As mentioned above, no special or extraordinary reasons have been recorded for rejecting the transaction value. It is settled law that unless transaction value is rejected for extraordinary or special reasons, the same has to be accepted. If the Department wants to allege undervaluation, it must make detailed inquiries, collect material and also adequate evidence." 12. As mentioned above, no special or extraordinary reasons have been recorded for rejecting the transaction value. It is settled law that unless transaction value is rejected for extraordinary or special reasons, the same has to be accepted. We agree with the submissions made by Mr Vellapally appearing for the assessee that the Tribunal has fallen in error in taking a decision contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in Eicher Tractors1 and other decisions mentioned above. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal and the adjudicating authority are set aside and that of the first appellate authority is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 13. On an application filed by the appellant assessee, this Court passed the following order during the pendency of this appeal: "The application for stay is disposed of by directing that all future imports will be subject to provisional assessment and such provisional assessment and all the past provisional assessments in respect of similar import will be subject to the outcome of this appeal." 14. Mr Vellapally appearing for the assessee has informed us that in view of the above interim order provisional assessments for the subsequent imports have been made. The Department is directed to frame the fill'1 assessment in terms of the order passed today with consequential effects.