Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur Vs. M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 615 of 2000
Petitioner: Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur
Respondent: M/s. Usha Beltron Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 615 of 2000
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND C.J.I., R.C. LAHOTI & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 04, 2000
Head Note:
CUSTOMS
Customs Act, 1962
Section 27 – Unjust enrichment – Principle – Applicability – If applicable to goods imported and captively used/consumed and not sold. Held that in view of Solar Pesticide’s case (JT 2000 (1) SC 577) the principle is applicable to goods captively consumed.
(Para 1)
Cases Reffered:
1. Solar Pesticides (India) Limited v. Union of India (JT 2000 (1) SC 577)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The precise issue involved in this appeal is whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable where goods are captively consumed and not sold. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal ‘) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-respondent relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides (India) Limited v. Union of India (1992 (57) ELT 201) holding that the doctrine was not applicable in respect of raw material imported and consumed in the manufacture of final product. The judgment in Solar Pesticides’s etc.(supra) came up for consideration in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Solar pesticides Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. case reported as JT 2000 (1) SC, 577, before a three Judge Bench of this Court, wherein it was held that the principle of unjust enrichment incorporated in Section 27 of the Customs Act would be applicable in respect of imported raw material which is captively consumed in the manufacture of final product. In view of the law, thus laid down, the impugned judgment of the Tribun-al cannot be sustained. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
2. Whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to the con-sumer or not is a matter on which the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion. Therefore, we consider it appropriate while allowing the appeal to remand the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of that question and render appropriate judgment after hearing the parties. We request the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
3. No costs.
1. The precise issue involved in this appeal is whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable where goods are captively consumed and not sold. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal ‘) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-respondent relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides (India) Limited v. Union of India (1992 (57) ELT 201) holding that the doctrine was not applicable in respect of raw material imported and consumed in the manufacture of final product. The judgment in Solar Pesticides’s etc.(supra) came up for consideration in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Solar pesticides Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. case reported as JT 2000 (1) SC, 577, before a three Judge Bench of this Court, wherein it was held that the principle of unjust enrichment incorporated in Section 27 of the Customs Act would be applicable in respect of imported raw material which is captively consumed in the manufacture of final product. In view of the law, thus laid down, the impugned judgment of the Tribun-al cannot be sustained. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
2. Whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to the con-sumer or not is a matter on which the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion. Therefore, we consider it appropriate while allowing the appeal to remand the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of that question and render appropriate judgment after hearing the parties. We request the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
3. No costs.
