Advance ruling remains binding despite Supreme Court dismissal in similar cases under Section 28J

Bombay HC allowed writ petition challenging order-in-original (O-I-O) in betel nuts smuggling case. Respondents argued advance ruling was not binding due to changed law following SC dismissal of appeal in other assessees' cases. HC held that CESTAT Chennai Bench decision and SC dismissal without merits review only created res judicata between specific parties, not binding precedent nationwide. Authorities violated Section 28J by passing O-I-O contrary to advance ruling. HC found order passed without jurisdiction, making writ petition maintainable despite alternative appellate remedy. Impugned O-I-O dated November 11, 2022 quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 11th November 2022.
2. Binding nature of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) decision.
3. Jurisdiction and applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
4. Alternate remedy and its applicability.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 11th November 2022:
The petitioner challenges the O-I-O dated 11th November 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, on the grounds that it defies the AAR order dated 31 March 2017, which classified the petitioner's imported betel nut products under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2106 90 30.

2. Binding Nature of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) Decision:
The petitioner argues that the AAR's ruling on 31st March 2017, which classified their products under CTH 2106 90 30, is binding under Section 28J(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents' contention that the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court against a CESTAT Chennai Bench decision changes the law, making the AAR ruling non-binding, was rejected. The court emphasized that the CESTAT decision is not binding on the petitioner or authorities outside its jurisdiction and does not constitute a change in law under Section 28J(2).

3. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226:
The court held that despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked if there is a breach of fundamental rights, natural justice, or if the order is without jurisdiction. The court found that the O-I-O was passed without jurisdiction, contrary to Section 28J of the Customs Act, and thus, the writ petition is maintainable.

4. Alternate Remedy and its Applicability:
The respondents argued for dismissal of the petition on the grounds of an alternate remedy. However, the court noted that the decisions cited by the respondents pertain to show cause notices where jurisdiction was not in question. Given that the O-I-O was passed without jurisdiction, the court ruled that the petitioner need not resort to an appellate remedy.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the impugned O-I-O dated 11th November 2022, making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. No costs were awarded.

---