Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AAR Customs - 2021 (4) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1294 - AAR - CustomsClassification of imported goods - tunnel boring machine and its components - eligibility of the said goods for exemption from Customs duty - time limit of 3 months for pronouncing the advance ruling as provided under sub-section (6) of Section 28-I of the Act had already expired on 4-1-2021, the day the CAAR, Mumbai came into existence - HELD THAT:- 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. It is found 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 of argument advanced by the applicant is to be accepted, it would lead to the conclusion that the limitation provided under Section 28(8) of the Act for adjudication of a show cause notice is merely procedural. In that event, the legal stipulation that if the show cause notice is not adjudicated within the time allowed, the result would that no notice has actually been issued, would become redundant. It is a settled proposition of law that any interpretation of law which leads to a manifest absurdity has to be eschewed. It is clear from a plain reading of Section 2(2) of the Act 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. Also, one of the questions raised in the application, i.e., eligibility for nil rate of duty under Entry No. 446 of the Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 has lost relevance in view of the amending Notification No. 2/2021, dated 1-2-2021. Application dismissed.
|