Question of law must arise on the Tribunal's order date; later Supreme Court reversal cannot create it retrospectively.

A question of law cannot be treated as arising from a Tribunal's final order merely because a later Supreme Court ruling has since altered the governing position. On the date of the Tribunal's order, the applicable law was the law then declared by the High Court, and that later reversal could not retrospectively create a new question for the pending application. The discussion also noted the Revenue's reliance on unjust enrichment under Section 27 and the burden rule under Section 28D of the Customs Act in relation to captive consumption of imported raw materials, but the decisive point remained the absence of an existing question of law on the relevant date. The application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question of law proposed by the Revenue arose from the Tribunal's final order as on the date on which that order was passed.

Analysis: The application rested on the subsequent reversal of the Bombay High Court ruling in Solar Pesticides by the Supreme Court and on the submission that the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the burden under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 would apply to imported raw materials captively consumed in manufacture. The determining point, however, was whether the proposed question had actually arisen from the Tribunal's order on the date it was made. The applicable law at that time was the law then laid down by the High Court, and the later Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively create such a question for the purpose of the present application.

Conclusion: The proposed question of law did not arise from the Tribunal's final order on the relevant date, and the application was rejected.

---