O R D E R

The writ on hand is filed questioning the validity of the Circular No.44/203-Customs dated 30.12.2013 issued by the second respondent and the consequential letter No.JMFTWZ/DHL/MISC/GE-214 dated 03.02.2014 passed by the fourth respondent and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing, trading, services of many products, including equipment for Wind Operated Electricity Generators. The petitioner regularly imports goods, which are used by it for its manufacturing purposes. The petitioner imports the goods through JMFTWZ unit of DHL Logistics Private Limited, located in the Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ). The petitioner clears the goods to its units located in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as stock transfers for the purpose of trading as well as carrying out certain manufacturing activities. The petitioner states that a FTWZ is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), wherein mainly trading, warehousing and other activities related thereto are carried out.

3. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, mainly contended that the Advance Ruling dated 27.05.2013 in petitioner's own case had been ignored by the respondents, while passing the impugned order dated 03.02.2014. The Notification dated 16.05.2005 with reference to the Bill of Entries (8 in Nos.) from 10.01.2014 to 28.01.2014 were not considered with reference to the Advance Ruling rendered in the case of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, another 13 Bill of Entries were filed by way of miscellaneous application in the writ petition.

4. The petitioner has stated that the implication of the Advance Ruling with reference to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', in short) and its binding nature is the question. Despite the fact that the said Advance Ruling is binding on the respondents, they have ignored it without any valid reason and therefore, the impugned order is untenable and in violation of the provisions of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that process is to clear the goods by way of stock transfer to the own manufacturing unit of the petitioner. An admitted fact is that when the nature of stock transfer is not disputed between the parties, the application of Advance Ruling cannot be denied and therefore, the petitioner is eligible for exemption and such an exemption is rejected contrary to the Advance Ruling rendered.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the Advance Ruling in Rule No.AAR/ Cus/01/2013 dated 27.05.2013, wherein the petitioner was granted exemption. The process to clear the goods by way of stock transfer was considered by the Authority for Advance Ruling. Therefore, the Authorities have no reason to take a decision which is not in consonance with the Advance Ruling, which was issued based on the nature of stock transfer.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 28E of the Act, wherein sub-clause (b) defines the 'Advance Ruling'. Section 28J of the Act, speaks about the 'applicability of Advance Ruling'.

8. It is contended that under the said provision, it is binding on all the Authorities across the country and therefore, the respondents cannot adopt any other opinion, which is in contravention to the findings given by the Advance Ruling Authority. It is further contended that the manner in which the order impugned passed would show that the respondents had not shown any sanctity on the Advance Ruling, more specifically, in the case of the petitioner. Thus, at the outset, the impugned order is void in limine and therefore, preferring an appeal in the present case would be a futile exercise.

9. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd [2003 (158) ELT 3 (SC)], wherein the Supreme C