2004 (11) TMI 354 - AAR - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - Ruling given that 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 - Rectification sought as order would affect the interest of all the purchasers of the applicant as they would also be bound by the ruling of this Authority - Held that - 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 - 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 - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of ruling pronounced by the Authority on the questions specified in the application under Rule 18 of the Advance Rulings (Procedural) Rules, 2003.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought rectification of a ruling pronounced by the Authority for Advance Rulings on the questions specified in the application. The petitioner argued that a portion of the ruling contained an error apparent from the record, which would affect the interests of all purchasers of the applicant. However, the Authority found the petition to be without merit. Rule 18 allows for the rectification of mistakes apparent from the record before the ruling is given effect to by the assessing officer. The Authority clarified that only mistakes that are obvious and do not require a lengthy process of reasoning to discover can be rectified. The portion in question was a considered opinion based on an examination of the scope of the notification regarding goods imported by a manufacturer for export. Additionally, Section 28J of the Act specifies that advance rulings are binding only on the applicant, matters referred to in specific sections, and the Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the ruling would not bind the purchasers of the applicant. The Authority concluded that the ruling was correct based on the questions in the application, even though the questions were framed broadly, and thus, Rule 18 did not apply as the error was not apparent from the record.

In conclusion, the petition for rectification was dismissed as being without merit, as the ruling was found to be correct based on the questions posed in the application, and the error alleged by the petitioner was not considered apparent from the record. The Authority emphasized the limited scope of rectification under Rule 18 and the specific binding nature of advance rulings as per the relevant legal provisions.