Advance ruling under Customs Act binds only within statutory limits; SAD exemption disputes must still be decided on facts.

An advance ruling under the Customs Act binds only to the extent expressly set out in Section 28J: it applies to the applicant, the specific matter referred, and the concerned customs officers dealing with that applicant. It cannot be expanded into a nationwide mandate for all customs authorities, particularly where the ruling depends on the facts placed before the authority. The circular concerning SAD exemption on stock transfers from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA was treated as a clarification rather than a contradiction of the notification, and entitlement to exemption remained a matter for factual adjudication by the competent authority. The writ petition therefore failed, leaving the parties to pursue merits-based proceedings before the customs authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether an advance ruling under the Customs Act binds all customs authorities across India and whether the impugned circular denying SAD exemption on stock transfers from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA was unlawful.

Analysis: The binding force of an advance ruling is confined by Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962 to the applicant, the matter referred under Section 28H(2), and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs and their subordinates in respect of that applicant. The ruling cannot be enlarged into a countrywide mandate binding every customs authority, especially where the ruling itself turned on the facts projected before the authority and on the local tax law applicable in that case. The circular was also treated as a clarification on the availability of SAD exemption in stock-transfer situations and not as a contradiction of the notification. Since entitlement to exemption depended on factual adjudication, the competent authority had to examine the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The advance ruling was not binding generally on all customs authorities, and the impugned circular and consequential order were not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the parties were left to pursue adjudication before the competent authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling under Section 28J of the Customs Act binds only within the statutory limits expressly prescribed and cannot be treated as a universal precedent overriding independent factual adjudication by competent customs authorities.

---