9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of import of various edible products including products of betel nut (processed supari). The petitioner has been importing various forms of supari stated to be unflavoured betel nuts (supari) and API betel nuts (supari). The petitioner is importing the said goods from only two suppliers namely Asian Import & Export Co. Ltd., Thailand and Maung Maung Soe Family Co. Ltd., Myanmar. Such imports are received at Chennai and JNPT port. (i) On 31st March, 2017, on an application made by the petitioner, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruling made the following observations:- "12. In view of the above, we rule as under :- The goods sought to be imported, namely; 'unflavoured supari', 'flavoured supari', 'API supari' and 'Chikni supari' being processed Betelnut products which do not contain specified ingredients, namely; lime, kath and tobacco but containing other flavouring material / additives are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 90 30." (emphasis supplied) (ii) On 25th November, 2017, the petitioner imported betel nuts from Indonesia at the Chennai port and classified the same as 'unflavoured supari'. These goods were assessed under the Custom Tariff Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the appeal filed by parties before the Supreme Court against the orders passed by Chennai Bench of the Tribunal cannot be considered as a change of law so as to contend that the advance ruling is not binding under Sub-section (2) of Section 28J of the Act. The petitioner would further contend that the respondents are mis-reading Chapter 3 which does not apply to the product imported by the petitioner and the correct classification has to be under Chapter 21 of CTH which defines betel nut product and which reads thus :- "Betel nut product as supari" means any preparation containing betel nuts, but not containing any one or more of the following ingredients, namely : lime, katha (catechu), and tobacco, whether or not containing any other ingredients, such as cardamom, copra and menthol." 5. The petitioner would, therefore, contend that the O-I-O passed on 11th November, 2022 which is impugned in the present petition is wholly without jurisdiction and, therefore, the relief sought in the petition be granted. 6. Submissions of the Respondents:- The respondents would contend that the O-I-O is an appealable order and, therefore, the petitioner should be relegated to an alternat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless there is a change of law or facts on the basis of which the advance ruling has been pronounced. In the present proceedings, the only contention raised by the respondents is that because of change in law on account of dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court against the order passed by CESTAT in case of other assessees, advance ruling is not binding. 11. We do not agree with the contentions as urged by the Respondents for more than one reason. The decision of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench in case of S.T. Enterprises and Ayush Business Overseas 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been challenged by the respondents before the higher forum. The respondents did make an attempt for review of the said ruling by filing an application before the AAR which came to be dismissed on 30th March 2022 wherein the respondents have once again raised an issue of classification. The said rejection by the AAR dated 30th March 2022 is also not challenged before the higher forum. It is also important to note that this rejection was on 30th March 2022 which is post the decision of the CESTAT Chennai Bench in case of S.T. Enterprises (supra) and also dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court in case of Ayush Business Overseas (supra), both being dated 26th February 2021 and 19th March 2021 respectively. Therefore, the respondents have accepted the ruling in the case of the petitioner dated 31st March 2017 now they cannot be heard to contend that the ruling is not binding. 15. The decision of the Madras High Court in the petitioner's own case referred to hereinabove dated 18th January 2018 also holds that the seizure memo of the respondents therein is contrary to the ruling pronounced by the AAR in case of the petitioner. This observation has also not been challenged before a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
