TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tax Law in force in the State of Maharashtra. That was further clarified under Serials 82 and 103 of the Schedule C of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MAVT Act) the parts and components of wind operated electricity generators are subject to tax @ 5%. Therefore, it was considered as not a sale as defined under Section 2(24) of the MAVT Act. The present Advance Ruling relied on being rendered by treating the transaction on the factual scenario as projected by the applicant and not on analysis of the factual position. It is significant to note that Section 6(A) of the Central Sales Tax Act deals with the burden of proof etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. To put it differently, Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, mandates that stock transfer of goods is not covered within the definition of 'sale' and as such Central Sales Tax is not levied on stock transfer of goods. The binding nature is to be decided with reference to the nature of decisions by the Advance Ruling Authority. It is not as if that every finding of the Advance Ruling Authority is binding on all the Authorities across the country. The application of mind by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, another 13 Bill of Entries were filed by way of miscellaneous application in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner has stated that the implication of the Advance Ruling with reference to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short) and its binding nature is the question. Despite the fact that the said Advance Ruling is binding on the respondents, they have ignored it without any valid reason and therefore, the impugned order is untenable and in violation of the provisions of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that process is to clear the goods by way of stock transfer to the own manufacturing unit of the petitioner. An admitted fact is that when the nature of stock transfer is not disputed between the parties, the application of Advance Ruling cannot be denied and therefore, the petitioner is eligible for exemption and such an exemption is rejected contrary to the Advance Ruling rendered. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the Advance Ruling in Rule No.AAR/ Cus/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es may not be in a position to contravene or take a different view than that of the issues decided and communicated by way of circulars. Thus, it is not necessary to repeat all those judgments as the principles are not disputed on this aspect. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the circular impugned issued is in violation of the Notification dated 16.05.2005 as it contravenes the decision taken by the Government of India. 12. The learned Senior Panel Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, by stating that the binding nature of the Advance Ruling has been erroneously interpreted by the petitioner. The applicability of the Advance Ruling as contemplated under Section 28J of the Act is to be applied in all respects, 'The Principal Commissioner of Customs' within whose jurisdiction the issue falls and it cannot be construed that such Advance Ruling would be binding all over India against all the Authorities and in such circumstances, it may not be possible and there may not be any further scope for adjudication of facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, the Legislat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the decision made by the Advance Ruling Authority in Ruling No.AAR/Cus./01/2013 dated 27.05.2013. The said Ruling unambiguously states that the answer to the question formulated by the applicant as on the facts as projected by the applicant is in the affirmative. However, as noted supra, if at the time of adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority finds that the claim of stock transfer of goods is not legally supportable, it would be open to the Authority to arrive at such conclusion as is available in law. Thus, liberty is granted to adjudicate the facts. 16. In the present case, Advance Ruling was given with reference to the transaction within the State of Maharashtra with reference to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. Thus, the facts and circumstances with reference to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act may be different, which requires an elaborate adjudication by the Authorities Competent. Thus, the respondents have not violated either the provisions of the Customs Act or the findings of the Advance Ruling Authority and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 17. Considering the arguments as advanced on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act or the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or any tax or duty chargeable under any other law for the time being in force in the same manner as duty of customs leviable under this Act or the Customs Tariff Act; (e) determination of origin of the goods in terms of the rules notified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and matters relating thereto. (f) any other matter as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. Thus, application may be submitted for Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Act and the question on which the Advance Ruling is sought for shall be in respect of sub-clauses contemplated under (a) to (f) alone. 20. Coming back to Section 28J of the Act, the binding nature is to be confined only in respect of any matter referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 28H. Thus, matters discussed and findings offered beyond the scope of sub-section (2) of Section 28H by the Advance Ruling Authority are not binding. Those findings are also not falling within the ambit of Section 28J, so as to form an opinion regarding the binding nature. Thirdly, sub-clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 28J contemplates the Advance Ruling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by way of stock transfer to their own manufacturing unit located in Pune, Maharashtra and pay the duties of Customs in terms of Section 30 of SEZ Act and proposes to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No.45/2005 Customs dated 16.05.2005 that exempts goods cleared from the SEZ to DTA from payment of whole of the additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 subject to the fulfilment of conditions mentioned in the proviso of the aforesaid Notification. Thus, stock transfer in that particular case was within the State of Maharashtra with reference to the exemption Notification No.45/2005 dated 16.05.2005. 25. The issue considered by the Advance Ruling Authority is that Whether the goods stock transferred by the applicant from the SEZ unit to its DTA unit would be eligible for exemption from the payment of SAD under Notification No.45/2005 Customs dated 16.05.2005 . 26. No doubt, the said Notification is relied on by the petitioner in this writ petition also. However, the stock transfer made with reference to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, is also to be taken note of. With reference to the said issue, the Advance Ruli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, the Adjudicating Authority finds that the claim of stock transfer of goods is not legally supportable, it would be open to the Authority to arrive at such conclusion as is available in law. The application of Advance Ruling Authority itself is narrowed down with reference to the transaction established before the Advance Ruling Authority and undoubtedly, not intended for its application in respect of the other Customs Authorities or in respect of different business/sale transactions. 30. The binding nature is to be decided with reference to the nature of decisions by the Advance Ruling Authority. It is not as if that every finding of the Advance Ruling Authority is binding on all the Authorities across the country. The application of mind by the Competent Authority is the scope under the Customs Act in each and every case and the binding nature is undoubtedly confined in certain circumstances and more specifically, based on the nature of the decision rendered by the Advance Ruling Authority. When the Advance Ruling Authority themselves clarified that the decision is given to the answer to the question formulated by the applicant on the facts as projected by the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
