9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1010 - AAR - CustomsApplication for recalling of Ruling - Classification of goods - Vitamin Premixes - classifiable under Heading 23.09 or under Heading 29.36 - rectification of mistake - Section 28I (2) of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - The interesting fact is the applicant has approached the Authority only in respect of the current application and has sought to recall modify rectify or make the ruling void ab-initio. They claimed the applicability of the case laws in respect of other cases also and the same case laws were relied in most of them. However they have not sought to make the rulings in those cases void ab-initio as most of them are favorable to them. This clearly reveals that the applicant has not approached this forum with clean hands and have tried to twist facts and laws to circumvent the ruling. There are no merit in this application made by the applicant for modification of the Ruling under Regulation 21 of the CAAR 2021 vide letter dated 06.09.2022 and the same is rejected.
Issues:
1. Application for Recall of the Ruling 2. Application for Modification of the Ruling Application for Recall of the Ruling: The applicant sought a recall of the ruling, claiming that certain submissions were not considered. However, the ruling extensively discussed and distinguished the relevant judgments and submissions. The authority noted that the applicant did not bring up the order of the Jurisdictional Commissioner during the proceedings and clarified that such an order is not binding on the authority. Additionally, there is no provision for the recall of a ruling by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings under the Customs Act, 1962 or the CAAR, 2021. Consequently, the application for the recall of the ruling was rejected. Application for Modification of the Ruling: In this application, the applicant argued that the case laws they cited were not considered in their true spirit, leading to a mistake of law in the ruling. The authority found that the applicant relied on various case laws, including a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were discussed and distinguished in the ruling. The authority also highlighted the principle that decisions should not be based solely on precedent without considering the specific facts of each case. The applicant's assertion that the ruling was void ab initio due to the application of certain case laws was refuted by the authority. It was observed that the applicant selectively sought modifications only in the current application, indicating an attempt to manipulate the situation. Consequently, the application for the modification of the ruling was rejected under Regulation 21 of the CAAR, 2021. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the thorough consideration given to each application for recall and modification of the ruling, emphasizing the legal principles and precedents applied in reaching the decisions.
|
