News Flash
  • Annual Calendar of Departmental Examination for the year 2018-19 Click here
  • 28th India - Sri Lanka DG Level Talks on Anti-Smuggling and related matters being held on 22-23 February, 2018 in New Delhi between DG, DRI and DG, Customs, Sri Lanka.
  • Weekly newsletter from Chairman, CBEC dated 16/02/2018 Click here
  • “All users are informed that, the new version of MSR for Part-I has been uploaded”
  • One day Training on Government e-Market Place (GeM) and Competition Law for Group 'A' officers of CBEC on 20th February, 2018 click here
  • Circular on Proper officer under sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been uploaded
  • Weekly newsletter from Chairman, CBEC dated 09/02/2018 Click here
  • Video on implementation of Swachhta Action Plan by CBEC Click here
  • Notification for postponing the implementation of e-way bill rules has been issued
  • Letter to All CCAs regarding Taking Care while send Direct Recruitment Quota Requisition to DGHRD Click here
  • Government e-Market Place (GeM) and Competition Law for Group 'A' officers of CBEC on 20th February, 2018 click here
  • Training Schedule of GeM & e-Procurement Click Here
  • Customs duty Calculator will not functional from 02-Feb-2018 at 00:00 hrs till the updates of duty rates as per changes made in the Union Budget 2018-19
  • FAQs on EWay Bill Provisions in GSTclick here
  • The Union Budget of India for FY 2018-19 has been announced. Please click here for more details.
  • Field formations are informed that from this Month onwards : 1) DDM-CUS-1 has been modified with new column i.e 'IGST-REFUND' and this is to be uploaded since the Month of July-2017 onwards. 2) DDM-ST-1 has been restarted,so field formations are requested to upload the data since the Month of July-2017 onwards. 3) DRI-CUS-7 has been modified with new group i.e 'Recovery by way of disposal of goods' which is to be uploaded from the current Month ,i.e, Jan-2018.
  • GNIT E-tender for CCAMC for 22 in number Category-II Vessels dated 29.01.2018. closing date of tender is 15.03.2018 1300 hours.click here
  • CBEC launches IT tools ICETRAK and ICETAB for trade facilitation and faster clearances – To download ICETRAK, click here here on your Android mobile phone
  • ATTN: BUDGET UPDATE :On account of Budget 2018-2019, due to be presented on "1-Feb-2018", filing of B.E.'s would not be available from 1700 hrs onwards on "1-Feb-2018" till completion of updation of all changes in the ICES 1.5
  • Complete utilization of funds under "O.E." & "RRT" Object Heads in FY 2017-18click here
  • DG NACIN's letter regarding E way Bill Master Trainer of Faridabad and Bangalore for more detailclick here
  • Chairman CBEC's weekly newsletter dated 25.01.2018click here
  • CGST Rules as amended upto 23/01/2018 have been uploaded click here
  • Important information for the field click here
  • Notifications for notifying e-way Bill website and amended CGST Rules have been uploaded. Notifications for reduction in Late fees for various returns also uploaded.
  • Immediate Attention: Registration and Requisition letter issued for Next Dept. Exam. of Inspectors to be held from 13.03.2018 to 16.03.2018. Please download the same from www.nacenkanpur.gov.in.
  • Departmental Examination for promotion of Ministerial Officers to rescheduled to be held from 20.02.2018 to 22.02.2018
  • Letter to all CCs/DGs informing DGHRD Swachhta Whatapp Numberclick here
  • Reports on user Experienceclick here
  • Removing "Retired, but PPO not issued" figures reflecting on "Bhavishya" portal screenclick here
  • Advisory on AIO functioning, connectivity issues for GST.-click here, TCS Escalatoin Matrix for GST Zones LAN Implementation, Wipro Handholders, HP Resident Engineers
View all

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