TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") vide their Application dated 20.04.2022 had sought for advance ruling on the classification of vitamin premixes which was decided vie Ruling no. CAAR/Mum/ARC/24/2022 dated 08.07.2022. 2. The applicant has now filed three different applications against the above ruling for Recall of the Ruling vide email dated 01.09.2022, Modification of the Ruling vide application dated 06.09.2022 and Rectification of mistake of the Ruling vide application dated 06.09.2022 under the Regulation 21 and Regulation 22 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021 (hereinafter CAAR, 2021). 3. A personal hearing in respect of all these applications was held on 20.09.2022 and the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at para 6.7 of the Ruling. It was also pointed out at para 3.3 and 3.5 of the Ruling that applicant's global desk classifies the same product under CTH 2309. As far as the GST Circular is concerned, the same has been discusses at para 3.4 of the Ruling to decide why the said product cannot be classified as animal feed. 4.3. Therefore, the submission which the applicant had mentioned as not considered has been duly considered and discussed in detail. As far as the order of the Jurisdictional commissioner is considered, the same was never brought to the notice of the Authority during the course of the submission of the application, personal hearing or written submission and in any case it is not binding on the Authority. 4.4. In any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distinguished in detail in the Ruling at para 6.7 of the Ruling. 5.3. In this regard I find that the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of GOPAL MILLS vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Chandigarh-l reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 212 (Tri. - Del.) has held as follows: "Each and every decision referred to by any of the party to the litigation is not required to be considered in the Final Order. It is well settled law that the power of rectification is confined to the mistake apparent from the record. A mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on debatable law or facts is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bar contained in Section 28-I (2) of the Act, the Application for advance ruling filed by the applicant could not in law, have been proceeded with and decided upon. That the Advance Ruling Application was filed on account of a bona fide mistake on part of the applicant. However, the same was erroneously accepted and an Order was passed. Therefore, the Advance Ruling dated 08.07.2022 is void in the light of the proviso to the Section 28I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and it is accordingly prayed that the said ruling dated 8 July 2022 be recalled/rectified/modified. 5.6. In this regard, I find that even though the applicant has cited many case laws and have said that they are similar and identical goods however in the absence of test rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has now stated that there are various case laws pertaining to the subject goods, therefore the authority could not have passed an order under the Section 28-I of the Act. In this regard, as far as applicability of the case laws are concerned the same has been discussed and distinguished in the Ruling. Further, it is also seen in the preceding para how these are not identical or similar goods. 5.8. The applicant had filed 5 different applications seeking Advance Ruling on the same. The personal hearing in respect of all these applications were held on the same date viz. 01.06.2022. Post hearing the applicant had made a common submission vide letter dated 27.06.2022 citing all the case laws which they have again submitted in their submiss....