2011 (2) TMI 1250 - AAR - Central Excise

Modification/rectification/amendment of the advance ruling Held that - Commissioner in his petition is not merely requesting for a modification/rectification or amendment of the ruling but he is asking for an ab initio review of the ruling pronounced by the Authority Commissioner has not been able to substantiate his claim that a mistake of law or facts has occurred requiring us to invoke regulation 18 to modify the said advance ruling Commissioner has also not been successful in convincing us that there has been any mistake apparent from the record or there is any factual or material error in the records for us to order any rectification or amendment of the said mistake or error under Regulation 19 or 20 of the Procedure Regulations. The Authority does not have the jurisdiction under the law to reconsider or review its own ruling as has been sought by the Commissioner petition is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking reconsideration and modification of a decision by the Authority for Advance Rulings based on various grounds including natural justice, error of law and facts, and compliance with regulations.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner filed a petition under Regulations 18, 19, and 20 of the Procedure Regulations to request a review and modification of the Authority's ruling on an application for Advance Ruling by a company. The Commissioner raised concerns regarding the reliance on professional opinions, evidence submission, comparison with other products, interpretation of regulations, and compliance with the automobile policy.

2. The Commissioner argued that the decision was against the principles of natural justice as a professional opinion from IIT Delhi was not considered. However, the Authority had already taken into account contrasting opinions and concluded that the principles of natural justice were observed. The Commissioner also raised issues regarding the nature of imported goods, comparison with BMW case, and the number of motorcycle models, all of which were addressed in the ruling.

3. The Commissioner sought reconsideration under Regulations 18, 19, and 20, citing mistakes of law or fact, and requested the introduction of additional evidence after the conclusion of the hearing. The Authority has the discretion under Regulation 11 to permit or reject additional facts, and in this case, additional evidence was not entertained after the arguments were concluded.

4. The Authority's ruling considered the opinion of a Chartered Engineer and the Head of Mechanical Engineering at IIT Delhi, concluding that the imported goods were in semi-knocked down condition. The Commissioner's concerns regarding the nature of motorcycle kits, opinions of different entities, and adherence to the automobile policy were addressed in detail in the ruling.

5. The Commissioner's petition was rejected as the Authority found no grounds for modification or rectification of the ruling. The Authority determined that there was no mistake of law or fact that warranted a review, and the petition was deemed not maintainable under the relevant regulations.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the petition for reconsideration and modification of the Authority's ruling, highlighting the arguments presented by the Commissioner and the Authority's responses based on legal provisions and factual considerations.