AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - (i) The order dated 10 March 2025 at Exhibit 'A', [to the extent it concerns Apple Watch Bands alone], by which the Customs Authority for Advanced Ruling (CAAR) declined to entertain or rule upon the Petitioners' Renewal Application dated 14 November 2024 seeking a renewal of the Advance Ruling dated 18 March 2016 classifying their Apple Watch Bands under CTH 8517 7090. (ii) Adjudication order dated 25 March 2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Adjudication Cell, Air Cargo Complex - Adjudication Officer (R2) disposing of the Show Cause Notice dated 27 December 2024 concerning the period 1 April 2021 to 22 December 2021. 5. The above challenges arise in the following facts and circumstances: - (a) By Advance Ruling dated 18 March 2016, read with corrigendum dated 6 April 2016 (Exhibit 'H'), the CAAR ruled that the Apple Watch Bands imported by the Petitioner merited classification under CTH 8517 7090; (b) The Petitioner has pleaded that the above ruling was after comments were received from the Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai, stating that the Apple Watch Bands were classifiable under CTH 8517 7090. Such comments ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2024. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Isha Exim through Mr Prabal Kumar Kundu Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Ors 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2700. The Petitioner contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against this decision. (k) The Petitioner contends that the impugned adjudication order dated 25 March 2025 disposing of the show cause notice dated 27 December 2024 does not decide on this specific objection/contention raised by the Petitioner. (l) Hence, the Petitioner challenges the CAAR's order dated 10 March 2025 and the impugned adjudication order dated 25 March 2025. 6. At the outset, Mr Shah clarified that the Petitioners are concerned only with the Apple Watch Bands and not with the Apple Watch. He submitted that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the classification of the Apple Watch and further, that classification is confirmed by the impugned order dated 10 March 2025. Mr Shah submitted that the challenge in this Petition to the impugned order dated 10 March 2025 was therefore limited to the issue of the classification of the Apple Watch ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the above contentions, Mr Shah submitted that the Rule in this petition may be made absolute. 12. Ms Mujumdar submitted that as of 10 March 2025, the show-cause notice dated 27 December 2024 was still pending adjudication. Therefore, under Section 28 I of the Customs Act, the CAAR lacked jurisdiction to consider the renewal application, which was essentially an application for an advance ruling. She therefore argued that there was no basis to interfere with the CAAR's order dated 10 March 2025. 13. Without prejudice, Ms Mujumdar submitted that the 2016 Advance Ruling was based on a concession in the form of comments provided by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, in its letter dated 28 October 2015. She submitted that an audit reported that the Apple Watch Bands were correctly classifiable under CTH 9113 and not CTH 8517. This Audit Report constitutes a change in the facts and therefore, there was no question of the 2016 Advance Ruling continuing to remain valid or bind the authorities, including the 2nd Respondent. 14. Ms Mujumdar noted that the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the CAAR rejected Petitioner's application dated 14 November 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and the records called for, by order, either allow or reject the application: Provided that the Authority shall not allow the application where the question raised in the application is - (a) already pending in the applicant's case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court; (b) the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court: Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity has been given to the applicant of being heard: Provided also that where the application is rejected, reasons for such rejection shall be given in the order. (3) A copy of every order made under sub-section (2) shall be sent to the applicant and to the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs]. (4) Where an application is allowed under sub-section (2), the Authority shall, after examining such further material as may be placed before it by the applicant or obtained by the Authority, pronounce its advance ruling on the question specified in the application. (5) On a request received from the applicant, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eject the application. The proviso to Section 245R (2) places the restriction on the AAR, allowing such an application if the question raised in the application was already pending before any Income Tax authority or Appellate Tribunal. In this context, the Delhi High Court ruled that the question raised in the application seeking an Advance Ruling had to be pending before the Income Tax Authority or the Appellate Tribunal as on the date of making an application seeking an Advance Ruling and not on the date when the AAR decides such an application seeking an Advance Ruling. 24. The relevant discussion in the Delhi High Court Judgment in paragraph 31 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference. "31. Here it is sought to be submitted by Mr. Manchanda that as long as the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued prior to the date when the AAR took up for decision the applications filed by the Petitioner, it could be said that the question raised in the applications were already pending before the income tax authorities. The above submission appears to be contrary to the legislative intent spelt out in Section 245R(2) of the Act that the question raised in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017, containing similar provisions, also ruled that the proceedings had to be pending on the date of the application seeking the Advance Ruling and not on the date of the decision on such an application. In that case, the Petitioner's application seeking an advance ruling was filed on 28 December 2023, and a pre-show cause notice was issued only on 22 October 2024. Therefore, this Court held that the subsequent issue of such a pre-show cause notice would not come in the way of the Advance Ruling authority disposing of the application dated 20 December 2023 on its own merits and in accordance with law. 28. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 28-I(2) (a) of the Customs Act and the above-referred decisions, we have no hesitation in holding that the CAAR's order dated 10 March 2025, insofar as it concerns the Apple Watch bands, deserves to be interfered with. This is a case of CAAR refusing to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it based upon an incorrect construction of the provision of Section 28-I(2)(a) of the Customs Act. On this ground, the CAAR's impugned order dated 10 March 2025 [insofar as it concerns the Apple Watch bands] is liable to be set aside, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older: A Caveat." 32. Even the narrow exception recently carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India v. Tanya Energy Enterprises [Civil Appeal No. 11134 of 2025], will not apply in this case, and therefore, the revenue did not even raise such a contention. The alternative ground now sought to be virtually supplanted rather than supplemented cannot be traced from the record or the documents referred to in the order's factual narrative, nor, in the absence of any opportunity given to the assessee, can we say that the ground now urged is sufficient to sustain the impugned order. 33. From the reply dated 5 March 2025 filed by the Petitioner to the show cause notice dated 27 December 2024, we find that the Petitioner had clearly objected to the show cause notice dated 27 Dec....