M.C. Desai vs Collector Of Customs on 29 August, 1990
In his submission, therefore, prior to 11-5-1989 when this Bench passed the impugned order, the law was already laid down by a three member Bench, which had a binding effect so far as this Bench was concerned, but it was not known either to the Bench or to the applicants at that time, which resulted into non-availability thereof. Submitting that this had to be treated as error apparent on the face of it, Mr. Pochhkhanawalla submitted that the orders passed by the Bench ought to be suitably rectified. He also pleaded that facts before the Special Bench and those before this Bench were identical, as in both the cases, the licences were tainted with fraud, and the status thereof cannot be differentiated on the ground whether fraud was pratised prior or subsequent to issue. In both the cases, the licences were issued by the competent authorities, and as held by the Special Bench, they had to be treated as valid till they were cancelled. In his submission, distinction made by this Bench while disposing of the Reference Applications was also not proper.