https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439081 An advance ruling application under section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not maintainable before the Mumbai Authority because jurisdiction depended on the applicant's own office address, not the premises of a logistics service provider used under a clearing and forwarding arrangement. The applicant's registered address and IEC address were in Gurugram, Haryana, placing the matter within the Delhi advance ruling authority under regulation 6 of the Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021. The service-provider agreement did not make the Mumbai premises the applicant's office address, so rejection for want of jurisdiction was justified. en-us Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Jun 2023 08:49:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439081 An advance ruling application under section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not maintainable before the Mumbai Authority because jurisdiction depended on the applicant's own office address, not the premises of a logistics service provider used under a clearing and forwarding arrangement. The applicant's registered address and IEC address were in Gurugram, Haryana, placing the matter within the Delhi advance ruling authority under regulation 6 of the Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021. The service-provider agreement did not make the Mumbai premises the applicant's office address, so rejection for want of jurisdiction was justified. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439081