2017 (7) TMI 751 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses challenge to refund claim for Inland Air Travel Tax by private airline

Jet Airways India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Jet Airways India Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs - 2017 (356) E.L.T. 214 (Del.) Issues:1. Entitlement to refund of Inland Air Travel Tax (‘IATT’)2. Interpretation of Section 41(f)(ii) of the Finance Act, 19893. Validity of exemption extension to private airlines4. Rejection of refund claim for the period 1st October, 2001 to 7th October, 20035. Challenge of the order dated 11th December, 2006 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the Petitioner to a refund of Inland Air Travel Tax (‘IATT’) deposited between October 2001 to October 2003 for Sky Marshals deployed on its aircrafts. The Petitioner argues that Sky Marshals should not be considered as 'passengers' under Section 41(f)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1989, and thus, no IATT should be payable for them.2. The Government of India mandated air carriers to carry Sky Marshals free of charge due to security concerns, leading to the deployment of Sky Marshals on all flights. Initially, this obligation was imposed only on Indian Airlines, but it was later extended to private airlines as well. The Petitioner sought a refund of the IATT deposited, contending that the exemption granted to Indian Airlines was not extended to them, making the IATT burden unjust.3. The Petitioner's refund claim was partially accepted for the period after 8th October, 2003, but the claim for the earlier period was rejected. Various representations and appeals were made, including a challenge to the order dated 11th December, 2006, by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred.4. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1989, specifically Sections 41(f), 42, and 45, which mandated the collection of IATT from all passengers. The Petitioner sought relief through a writ petition, primarily aiming to set aside the original order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the subsequent order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).5. The Court found that the exemption from IATT was initially applicable only to Indian Airlines and was later extended to other domestic private airlines. The orders rejecting the refund claim were upheld based on the specific provisions and notifications in place. The Court also noted the delay in filing the appeal and the lack of application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).6. Ultimately, since the Petitioner did not challenge the provisions or seek a declaration regarding the status of Sky Marshals as passengers, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the challenge was limited to the correctness of the two orders under scrutiny, with no costs imposed on either party.