https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96096 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. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:18:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96096 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96096