Last Updated on
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. Vide Order No. C-11/2851/99/WZB/C.II dated 1-11-99, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad. The issue involved was whether the principle of unjust enrichment would apply where the goods were not sold by the importer but were captively consumed. At the time when the Tribunal passed this order the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides v. U.O.I. -1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 was taken to be the settled law on this issue, in spite of the fact that the revenue had filed an appeal against this judgment. In the cited order by the Tribunal following an earlier judgment reproduced in Commissioner v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. [1999 (34) R.L.T. 694], the Tribunal observed as under :
“In the judgment it was held that where the goods were not sold but were captively consumed, the law of unjust enrichment will not apply”.
2. The present application for rectification of mistake states that the word “not” appearing at the end of the sentence should be removed in the light of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticides, [2000 (1) Scale 423].
3. When the cited judgment was passed by the Tribunal the observation was made correctly. There is no scope for existence of any error therein. The subsequent judgment of a higher forum reversing the judgment on which reliance was placed by the Tribunal in a particular order does not make the order of the Tribunal as erroneous.
4. Finding no force in the application we dismiss the same.