AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
(CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX)
NEW DELHI

PRESENT

   O  R  D  E  R
                  (By  Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri)

            The Petitioner in this petition under Rule 18 of the Authority for Advance Rulings (Procedural) Rules, 2003 (for short the "Rules") is the applicant in the application for advance ruling (AAR(Cus)/01/2004).  It seeks rectification of ruling pronounced by the Authority on the questions specified in the said application on 16.3.2004 on the ground it suffers from mistake apparent from the record. 

2.         Mr. Dhingra appearing for the petitioner, points out to us the portion of the ruling which according to him contains an error apparent from the record, which reads as follows:- 

 "It is fairly conceded before us by the applicant that none of these conditions are satisfied in this case.  If this be so, the benefit of the notification is not available to the applicant nor will it be available to purchasers from the applicant even though they may be utilizing the imported of goods in manufacturing other goods for exporting the same for the simple reason that admittedly they have not imported the goods in question".

Mr. Dhingra points out that the portion underscored contains the error on the face of the record.  He argues that apart from the applicant, the persons who purchase the goods from the applicant and get clearance from the customs will also be importers and would be end to the benefit of the notification and that the portion indicated above would affect the interest of all the purchasers of the applicant as they would also be bound by the ruling of this Authority.  He, however,  admits that the ruling is right having regard to the questions proposed by the applicant but adds that the questions themselves were framed in wide terms.

3.         Heard Shri A.K. Roy, Joint CDR for the Commissioner in application.

4.         In our view the petition is wholly without any merit.  First the portion pointed out above does not suffer from any mistake let alone mistake apparent on the record having regard to the scope of rule 18 which reads thus:

Rectification of mistakes  -
(1)        The Authority may, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it before the ruling pronounced by the Authority has been given effect to by the assessing officer.

(2)       Such amendment may be made suo motu or when the mistake is brought to its notice by the applicant or the Commissioner, but only after following the applicant and the Commissioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Rule 18 is analogous to Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.  Under the rule only such a mistake is liable to be rectified which is apparent from the record. Such a mistake as occurs due to accident or inadvertence, once your attention is invited to it, you cannot miss it.  If it requires debate,  long process of reasoning to discover the mistake, it cannot be a mistake apparent from the record.   The portion indicated above is a considered opinion expressed after examining the scope of the notification under which  goods  imported by a  manufacturer of specified  goods for use in the manufacture of such goods for export by that manufacturer alone enjoy the exemption; the benefit of the notification is not available to bona fide exporters of manufactured goods, who are purchasers from importers.  Secondly, section 28J of the Act, on which Mr. Dhingra also relies, makes it abundantly clear that the advance ruling pronounced by the Authority under section 28-I(6) shall be binding only on (a) the applicant who sought it; (b) in respect of matters referred to in sub-section(2) of section 28H and (c)  the Commissioner of Customs.  The purchasers or the would-be purchasers of the applicant do not fall under any of the above mentioned clauses, therefore, it would be futile to contend that under section 28J the ruling would be binding on the purchasers.  Whether purchasers of the applicant would step into the shoes of the applicant is a question which does not arise for our consideration here and we express no opinion on it.   Even according to Mr. Dhingra, the ruling is correct on the basis of the question mentioned in the application but the question was not properly framed.  This being the real position, rule 18 will not be applicable as error cannot be said to be apparent from the record.

5.         In the result the petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

New Delhi
Date:25-11-2004