2025-VIL-1978-CESTAT-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1978-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Benefit of Exemption Notification Aircraft and spare-parts, Non-Scheduled Air Transport Service, Suppression of Facts, Extended Period of Limitation - Appellant imported an aircraft and its spare parts claiming the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. and Notification No. 6/2006-CE. The DR) issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant had misused the Exemption Notification by not using the aircraft for the intended purpose of non-scheduled operations and instead allowing it to be used by the promoters and their family members - The DRI also alleged that the spare parts imported were not used for repair or maintenance under the Exemption Notification, and the appellant was not a 'dedicated company' eligible to claim the benefit under the Exemption Notification - Whether the appellant had violated the conditions of the Exemption Notification by not using the aircraft for the intended purpose of non-scheduled operations – HELD - The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi vs. Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in VRL Logistics vs. Commissioner of Customs held that a non-scheduled (passenger) operator can carry out charter services, and there is no requirement of publication of tariff. The appellant's Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association clearly show that one of the principal objectives of the company is the operation of air transport services, and the appellant could provide charter services to its group companies as such operations were carried out against remuneration. Therefore, the appellant had not violated the conditions of the Exemption Notification - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could have been invoked in the present case – HELD - For invoking the extended period of limitation, there must be a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty, and mere suppression of facts is not enough. In the present case, the Additional Director General did not make any finding that the appellant had suppressed information with the intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?