TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (for short "the Procedure Regulations"). The Commissioner has requested to "reconsider the decision" of the Authority in its ruling issued vide Order No. AAR/Cus/02/2010 on an application for Advance Ruling filed by M/s. H-D Motors Company India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant'). The Commissioner has further requested to "modify/rectify/amend" the said order as it deems fit. 2. In the petition it has been represented that the Commissioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Authority in the said case broadly on the issue that the professional opinion of the Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi was not relied upon and thus the decision was against the principles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the automobile policy of the Government and is thus a serious error of law. The Commissioner has accordingly sought a reconsideration of the decision and modification/rectification/amendment of the said order of the Advance Ruling under Regulations 18, 19 and 20 of the Procedure Regulations. 3. Regulation 18 of the Procedure Regulations enables the modification of an order for an advance ruling pronounced by the Authority only if the said order/ruling was pronounced under "mistake of law or fact". Regulation 19 of the Procedure Regulations enables the Authority to amend an advance ruling pronounced by it only for the purpose of rectifying any mistake "apparent from the record". Regulation 20 enables the Authority to permit amendm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; The Authority may, at its discretion, either suo motu or on a petition made to this effect by a party to the application, permit or require the applicant or the Commissioner to submit such additional facts as may be necessary to enable it to pronounce its advance ruling. (2) ................... The Authority has therefore the discretion under the said Regulation 11 of the Procedure Regulations to permit or not to permit any additional facts to be taken on record. It is observed that apart from the request made by the Commissioner on 13th July, 2010 for taking on record the opinion of the Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT, Delhi, there was also a request from the applicant vide its letter d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcycle in a Completely Knocked Down Condition, but could be considered to be in Semi Knocked Down Condition". Except for the status of the authority issuing the opinion, there is no difference in the conclusion drawn in each of them. In our opinion no miscarriage of justice has been done even if the opinion of IIT, Delhi has not been formally taken on record. The requirements of observing the principles of natural justice in pronouncing the advance ruling have, however, been fully complied with. 7. The Commissioner has listed out several other issues in the petition as grounds for seeking modification/rectification/amendment of the advance ruling. We have carefully examined these issues and we observe that each of the points has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision given on the application for advance ruling in the BMW case. (Paragraphs 11, 12 and 16 of the ruling refer). On the question of comparison between cars and motorcycle being incompatible, the Authority has recorded its findings in paragraph 12 of the ruling where in it is observed "there may be difference in the facts of the present case with regard to nature of sub-assemblies/assemblies but in principle we do not find any major deviation". On the question of interpretation of the authority having rendered the entry against serial No. 2 of item 345 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. as otiose and redundant, the Authority has discussed this issue in paragraph 16 of the ruling. The Commissioner has also expressed apprehension that....