Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (4) TMI 1251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on for non-constitution of the requisite bench. I find it difficult to agree with the assertion of the applicant that the limitation prescribed under law is a mere procedural requirement. It is a settled proposition of law that any interpretation of law which leads to a manifest absurdity has to be eschewed. Besides, being a creature of statute, I am squarely bound by the four corners of the statute, and therefore, considering the express mandate of the statute, I find no reason to depart from it. The application was transferred to the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai in February, 2021. It is settled law that assessment is a quasi-judicial proceeding requiring application of mind and speaking decisions. I am, therefore, not convinced w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the day the CAAR, Mumbai came into existence. Therefore, the Secretary to the CAAR, Mumbai pointed out to the applicant that their original application has lapsed and that, if they are still desirous of obtaining an advance ruling, they need to apply afresh. However, as a trade facilitation measure, the application fee prescribed under sub-section 3 of section 28H of the Act was waived as it was paid originally and no advance ruling was pronounced. A communication dated 16.02.2021 from Sri S. Murugappan, Advocate and authorised representative of the applicant was received by the Secretary to the CAAR, Mumbai on 19.02.2021 affirming that the declarations made in the original application remain valid and unchanged and also requesting to pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ailable and the entry no. 446 has been amended vide notification no. 02/2021-Cus., dated 01.02.2021 and the exemption is now available only to the extent of duty @ 2.5% on parts and components for manufacture of tunnel boring machines provided the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 is followed. In view of the changed circumstances, the applicant was asked as to why their application for advance ruling shouldn't be rejected. Sri Murugappan sought some time to submit additional submissions. 3. An email was received from Sri Murugappan on 21.04.2021. However, a perusal of the mail revealed that it consists of the copy of a communication dated 17.09.2020 to the Additional Commissi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g machine and its components, as well as the eligibility of the said goods for exemption from customs duty. The request for advance ruling was filed in the secretariat of the erstwhile AAR, New Delhi on 14.10.2019. No pronouncements were made on the said application within three months as required under the provisions of sub-section 6 to section 28-I of the Act for the reason for non-constitution of the requisite bench. I find it difficult to agree with the assertion of the applicant that the limitation prescribed under law is a mere procedural requirement. I am mindful of the fact that the limitation of three months for pronouncing an advance ruling is prescribed in the Act itself and not in any delegated piece of legislation. If the line .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct that assessment includes provisional assessment and since the questions involved in the present proceedings are already pending in the applicant's case before an officer of customs, the proviso (a) to sub-section 2 of section 28-I of the Act does not allow me to pronounce any advance ruling as requested. It is settled law that assessment is a quasi-judicial proceeding requiring application of mind and speaking decisions. I am, therefore, not convinced with the argument that no independent proceeding is pending before any officer of customs, as argued by the applicant. I also take note of the fact that one of the questions raised in the application, i.e., eligibility for nil rate of duty under entry no. 446 of the notification no. 50/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates