Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs Taneja Aerospace And Aviation Ltd (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that whether condition 104 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is complied or not is required to be considered by the Customs Authorities and Customs Authorities are not bounded by the decision of DGCA.
Facts- The Revenue has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.09.2022 (Final Order No.50929/2022) passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The respondent had filed the aforementioned appeal (Customs Appeal No. 57/2010) impugning an order-in-original dated 20.11.2009, whereby the Adjudicating Authority (Commissioner of Customs) had raised a demand of ₹6,22,67,295/- and further imposed a penalty of ₹3,00,00,000/- u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In addition, the Commissioner also directed confiscation of the aircraft imported by the respondent u/s. 111(o) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same by payment of a redemption fine of ₹6,50,00,000/- u/s. 125 of the Customs Act. The allegation against the respondent was that it had not complied with the undertaking furnished in terms of the Condition 104 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 as amended by the Custom Notification No. 61/2007-Cus.
In terms of the Condition No.104, the aircraft is required to be used for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services. According to the Commissioner, the respondent had not complied with the said condition and had used the aircraft for private purposes and not for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services. The Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal by the impugned order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
