AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE
RULINGS
(CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE &
SERVICE TAX)
NEW DELHI
PRESENT
Hon'ble Justice
Syed Mohammed
Quadri
(Chairman) |
Mr. Somnath Pal
(Member) |
Dr. B.A.Agrawal
(Member |
ORDER NO. AAR/CUS/07/04 |
Petition No.ROM/01/CUS/2004 IN
|
ADVANCE RULING NO. AAR(CUS)/01/2004
|
Petitioner |
M/s A. Tex(India) Private Ltd.
15/15, Sarvapriya Vihar
New Delhi - 110 016 |
Commissioner concerned
|
Commissioner of Customs,
Delhi |
Present for the
petitioner |
Shri
Ashok Dhingra,
Consultant
CESTAT,
Delhi
|
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.
Sd/
(Somnath Pal)
Member
|
Sd/
(Justice S.S.M. Quadri)
Chairman |
Sd/
(B.A. Agrawal)
Member |
New Delhi
Date:25-11-2004
|