9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. The decision of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench in case of S.T. Enterprises [ 2021 (3) TMI 27 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and Ayush Business Overseas [ 2021 (3) TMI 1285 - SC ORDER] certainly cannot be a binding precedent on High Court nor can it be binding on all the authorities/assessees throughout the country. The decision of the Chennai Bench of CESTAT is binding interse between the parties before the Tribunal and not the petitioner or the authorities having jurisdiction over the petitioner. The dismissal by the Supreme Court without going into merits of the case acts only as res judicata between the parties before the Court and same cannot be said that CESTAT bench decision amounts to a declaration of law. Therefore dismissal of appeal by the assessees before the Chennai Bench of CESTAT, by the Supreme Court does not attract provisions of Section 28 J(2) of the Act for not following decision of the advance ruling rendered in the petitioner s own case. In the instant case, the respondents have passed the O-I-O contrary to the provisions of Section 28J of the Act and, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion that the impugned order is p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Tariff Heading (CTH) 21069030 as unflavoured supari . However, the officer of DRI did not permit the cargo to be cleared on the ground that the petitioner has mis-classified the goods. The petitioner challenged the said action by filing a writ petition before the Madras High Court inter alia contending that classification issue is resolved by the AAR vide order dated 31st March, 2017 wherein the AAR has given a ruling that unflavoured supari is to be classified under CTH 21069030. The Madras High Court in its judgment reported in 2018 (13) GSTL 273 observed that the seizure memo is contrary to the ruling passed by the AAR as well as the stand taken by the Commissioner of Customs before the said authority and, therefore, the detention of the cargo by the revenue authority was wholly unjustified. This order has attained finality. (iii) Subsequently, the petitioner imported unflavoured supari from Myanmar by classifying the same under CTH 21069030 vide Bill of Entry No. 8077228 dated 30th March, 2022. Respondent no. 3 passed an O-I-O dated 11th November, 2022 rejecting the classification of the goods imported on 30th March, 2022 under CTH 21069030 and ordered the same to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner should be relegated to an alternate remedy. The respondents have relied on various decisions, for the said proposition, refusing to entertain writ jurisdiction. Alternatively, the respondents would contend that on account of decision rendered by the CESTAT Chennai Bench in case of S.T. Enterprises (supra) and Ayush Business Overseas (supra) and the appeal against the said order having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, the ruling given by the AAR is not binding as per Subsection (2) of Section 28J of the Customs Act and, therefore, the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of present petition on the ground of an alternate remedy and also on merit. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and with their assistance. We have perused the records of the present petition. Analysis and Conclusion :- 8. It is a well settled in law that the assessee can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite an alternate statutory remedy of an appeal interalia on the ground that there is a breach of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessees before the Chennai Bench of CESTAT, by the Supreme Court does not attract provisions of Section 28 J(2) of the Act for not following decision of the advance ruling rendered in the petitioner s own case. 12. Even otherwise, the facts of S.T. Enterprises case (supra) as stated in paras 2 and 3 of the said decision are also different and therefore even on facts same is distinguishable from the facts of the petitioner. In the case of S.T. Enterprises the revenue s case was that Areca nuts is a prohibited item for import as the CIF value of the goods was lesser than Rs. 251/- per Kg. Furthermore, in the case of S.T. Enterprises, there was a finding that as per report, process stated by the importer have not been undertaken to make the betel nut product of betel nut to merit classification under CTH 2106 which is not the case in the impugned proceedings before us. The CESTAT, Chennai Bench in para 11 observed that based on chemical examiner s report the betel nuts were not subjected to any processes. However, on the contrary report in the case of the petitioner before us certifies that processes were carried out on betel nut and therefore even on this count decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R in case of the petitioner. This observation has also not been challenged before any higher judicial forum which also amounts to the respondents having accepted the ruling pronounced by the AAR in case of the petitioner. 16. In the ruling pronounced by the AAR dated 31st March 2017, respondents have accepted in paragraph 7, the classification under Chapter Heading 21. The said paragraph 7 reads thus :- 7. It is noticed that the comments in respect of said application were called for from Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II and Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-II). Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II agreed with the applicant that the subject items are classifiable under Chapter Heading 21069030 as Betelnut Product as Supari. Therefore, even on this count, the said respondents cannot contend otherwise. 17. Therefore, looked from any angle, the ruling dated 31st March 2017 passed by the AAR in the petitioner s own case is binding under Section 28 J (1) on the petitioner and the respondents as there being no change in law post the said decision and the said decision having been accepted by the respondents in the absence of any further challenge before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
