Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Cc vs Hyderabad Industries Ltd. on 4 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(76)ECR30(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is under challenge. The matter relates to the refund in respect of spare parts for generators imported by M/s. Hyderabad Industries Ltd. and used captively by them. The Asstt. Collector of Customs Refund Department had held that the amount of Rs. 11,750/- have become refundable under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. He however, ordered that the amount of refund was to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vardhman Spinning and General Mills , the Collector held that the question of undue enrichment within the meaning of Section 27 did not arise in that case.
2. The Revenue had contended in this appeal that the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI had not been accepted by the Department and a SLP had been filed in the Supreme Court against the said order.
3. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR for the appellants/Revenue and Shri Rahul Ray, Advocate for the party.
4. We find that the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. had dealt with the law relating to the unjust enrichment. The issue relating to captive consumption had however been left open by the Apex Court. In para 98 of their decision, in the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed as under:
98. Clarification: The situation in the case of captive consumption has not been dealt with by us in this opinion. We left this question open.
5. Both the sides admitted that the Apex Court had yet to dispose of the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. decided by the Bombay High Court.
6. As we find that in the present case the goads imported has been captively used, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in this matter. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected, Ordered accordingly.
Order dictated & pronounced in the Open Court on 4.3.1998.