Case Law Details
In re M/s. Data Card lndia Pvt Ltd. & Ors. (CAAR Mumbai)
In pursuance of Notification No. 01/2021- Customs (N.T.), dated 04.01.2021, Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021 have been notified. Thereafter, the pending applications with the Authority for Advance Rulings, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, New Delhi (erstwhile authority) were transferred to the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai based on the addresses of the applicants as per the section 28 F (3) of the Customs Act, 1962, which is reproduced below:
“on and from the date of appointment of the customs authority for advance rulings, every application and proceeding pending before the erstwhile authority for advance rulings shall stand transferred to the authority from the stage at which such application or proceeding stood as on the date of such appointment.”
2. Thereafter, e-mails/letters dated 10/18.02.2021 were sent to all such applicants in order to provide an opportunity to re-submit the applications in form CAAR-1 as prescribed under sub-clause 1 of clause 6 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021. Further, reminder letters dated 14.07.2021 through registered post and email were also sent, wherein it was impressed that failing the aforesaid refiling of application within 15 days of receiving the letter/email, it shall lead to the conclusion that the applicants are not interested in obtaining an advance ruling–and applications shall be deemed as closed.
3. In this regard, no communication/application has been received till date in respect of the applicants listed at annex to this ruling.
4. In view of the above, it would be pertinent to mention the maxims “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt” (The law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.) as well as “Interest reipublicae zit sit finis litium” (The interest of state requires that there should be an end to litigation) dictate that a conclusion is arrived at in respect of these transferred applications, where the applicants have failed to reaffirm their desire for obtaining an advance ruling. Hence, the applications mentioned in annex to this ruling are rejected on the ground of non-prosecution.
