IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.22 OF 2008 Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Kanakia Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.K.R.Chaudhari for the Appellant. Mr.P.H.Nadkarni for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. By this appeal what is challenged is the order dated 28-5-2007 passed by the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.C/1219 of 2006. It is common ground that before the tribunal two questions were argued. First was that because the matter is covered by Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it being a self-contained provision, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. The second question argued was that the certificate of the chartered accountant which was submitted on behalf of the respondent to claim that there was no unjust enrichment in this case is not a relevant document. Perusal of the order of the tribunal shows that the tribunal relying upon a Larger Bench judgment in the case of Camprihans India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs Bombay held that since the matter is covered by Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. It was argued before us that though the respondent has produced sufficient material on record, the tribunal did not go into it. 3. We have been pointed out the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Limited V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) where now the Supreme Court has held that even where the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act do not apply, the doctrine of unjust enrichment can apply and, therefore, merely because the matter is covered by Section 9A, operation of doctrine of unjust enrichment may not be excluded. 4. In our opinion in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the order which is impugned in the appeal cannot be sustained. It will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on both the questions which were argued before us. The tribunal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, shall examine the issue whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment will be applicable in the instant case and if it finds that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable, the tribunal shall also go into the question whether the respondent has produced sufficient material on record to show that this is not a case of unjust enrichment. 6. The order impugned in this appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for consideration afresh. 7. The customs appeal is disposed of in view of this order. No costs. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.