*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.2/2005 M/s Seaking Marine Services. ..Appellants -Versus- The Commissioner of Customs. ..Respondent. ........... Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate i/b Jurisis Uno for the Appellants. Mr.A.S.Rao and Mr.J.B.Mishra, Advocates for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED, JJ. Date : 11th January, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for Appellants and the learned counsel appearing for Revenue. 2 This appeal was admitted by an order dated 08.09.2005 to consider the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the authority letter dated 8.11.2000 in favour of Shri Chetan Kothari could be nullified or rendered negatory merely on an earlier statement tendered by him in 1944 when neither the letter dated 8.11.2000 was withdrawn but supported with the affidavit of Shri Bhavesh Gandhi and the refund was to be issued in the name of the Appellant and not in the name of Chetan Kothari? 2. Whether the theory of unjust enrichment will apply when the goods at the time of clearance were neither charged to duty and no duty at the time of clearance (1992 to 1994) *2* was collected from the buyer and the payment for which refund is sought was made between September to November 1997 when the investigation was going on?” 3 The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that the application for refund was not filed by the duly authorized person. 4 We were taken through the resolution of the Company wherein Mr.Chetan Kothari, Officer of the Company, was authorized and permitted to sign all papers and letters and represent the Company before the authority and also receive and collect refund cheques for and on behalf of the Company. Prima facie, we do not find any fault with the authorization given by the Company in favour of Mr.Chetan Kothari. 5 So far as the second question of unjust enrichment is concerned, the Tribunal has based its finding on the decision of the first issue relating to the authorization in favour of Mr.Chetan Kothari holding that he was not competent to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment. In our opinion, if the Tribunal is not right on the first issue then the Tribunal cannot be said to be correct on the second issue. 6 In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal holding that the *3* application moved by the Appellants for refund claim is legal and valid and authorization in favour of Mr.Chetan Kothari was also legal and valid. The application presented by the Company is perfectly maintainable and the same is liable to be decided on its own merits. 7 Having said so, the Tribunal has only to go into the question of unjust enrichment and investigate the same on its own merits. Needless to mention, the Tribunal shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rival contentions on merits are kept open. 8 Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)