News Flash
  • All CC Zones/DGSTI are requested to transfer the legacy data from Pre GST Commissionerates to Post GST Commissionerates under PMM module.
  • CGST rates for Goods under different Notifications as amended from time to timeclick here
  • Letter to trade and industry associations inviting suggestions for budget 2018-19 has been issued and suggestions may be sent latest by 25th November 2017click here
  • IGST Rules, 2017 as amended upto 15/11/2017 have been uploaded
  • Letters regarding delivery and upgradation of IT infrastructure
  • Circular issued for manual filing and processing of refund claims in respect of zero-rated suppliesclick here
  • Notifications and Orders issued to implement the recommendations of the GST Council made in its 23rd meeting held on 10.11.2017.
  • Applications are invited for the post of Deputy Secretary/Director(ICD) and Deputy Secretary/Director(Drawback)click here
  • Letter regarding requirement of IT infrastructure at Customs formationsclick here
  • Field formations are requested to view the GST Performas with comments from GST-Policy wing on ‘www.cbecddm.gov.in/MIS/GSTHome/Feedback’ (after login into MIS) and give Feedback.
  • Decisions relating to Services in 23rd GST Council meeting at Guwahaticlick here
  • Changes in GST/IGST rate and clarifications in respect of GST rate on certain goods as approved by GST Council on 10.11.2017click here
  • Press Release On Changes recommended in Composition Scheme.click here
  • CBEC Press Release On GST Rate Changes.click here
  • Press release with respect to policy issues recommended in 23rd GST Council Meeting.click here
  • " Circulars on deemed export supplies from DTA to EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP Units and due date for generation of FORM GSTR-2A and FORM GSTR-1A issued"Click Here
  • Details of Vendors providing E-seals to exportersclick here
  • VPNoBB at Field Formations with less than 5 users/AIOs to be upgraded to 2 Mbps
  • REVISION OF PENSION CASES OF PRE-2016 PENSIONERS
  • Notification issued extending the due date for filing FORM GSTR-2 and FORM GSTR-3 for the month of July, 2017
  • Application of 'own merit' rule for determining seniority of Superintendents in Zones under CBEC -reg.click here
  • Two days course on Prevention of Wildlife Trafficking for the officers of CBEC of the rank of AC/DC/JC/Addl Commissioners and Commissioners of CBEC on 27th and 28th November, 2017click here
  • Notification for waiving late fee on delayed filing of FORM GSTR-3B for Aug & Sep, 2017 issued
  • UPS upkeep & maintenance activityclick here
  • Circular clarifying movement of goods on approval basis has been issued.click here
  • Circular on Authorized officer for enrollment of Goods and Services Tax Practitioner has been issued.click here
  • List of ports and ICDs wherein e-seal readers are to be provided by the vendors-.click here
  • Incase of any LAN-WAN issues please call 18002662232/18001214560 or mail Saksham.Seva@icegate.gov.in
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