2021 (9) TMI 1134 - AT - Customs

NCLT ruling: Change of address for Jet Airways approved under Insolvency Code

M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo)

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.'s request for a change of address and appointment of a Resolution ... Continuance of proceedings under Customs after initiation of CIRP under IBC - appointment of Resolution Professional under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The crux of the issue, as submitted by the Learned Counsel, is that even though the moratorium was imposed, it was on the claims by creditors and it was not applicable to the instant case which does not deal with any demand against the appellant but involves, on the contrary, a claim by the appellant themselves. On perusal of the order of NCLT, it is found that, either way, the proceedings can be continued. We also find that the second request of the appellant for change of address can also be incorporated in the cause title. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications filed by appellants can be allowed. The Miscellaneous applications stand accordingly disposed off. Claim of benefit of exemption - re-imported air craft engines and parts thereof which were exported for the purposes of repairs/ reconditioning etc. - HELD THAT:- It is very clear from the preamble of the notification that whole of additional duty, integrated tax, compensation cess leviable thereon respectively under sub-sections (1), (3), (5), (7) and (9) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, are wholly exempt - It is very clear that additional duty, integrated tax, compensation cess are exempted and customs duty would be limited to be taxed on the value of the fair cost of repairs carried out including cost of materials used in repairs, insurance and freight charges. The appeal is allowed. Issues involved:1. Change of address and appointment of Resolution Professional under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 46/2017 regarding exemption on re-imported aircraft engines and parts.Analysis:1. Change of address and appointment of Resolution Professional under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:The appellant, M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., requested the change of address and appointment of a Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had lifted the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the Insolvency Code, allowing the proceedings to continue. The Tribunal found that the moratorium did not apply to the appellant's case, as it did not involve any demands against the appellant but rather a claim by the appellant themselves. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings could be continued, and the appellant's request for a change of address was allowed.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 46/2017 regarding exemption on re-imported aircraft engines and parts:The appellant re-imported aircraft engines and parts exported for repairs/reconditioning, availing the exemption under Notification No. 46/2017 dated 30.06.2017. The notification exempted additional duty, integrated tax, and compensation cess, with customs duty limited to the fair cost of repairs, including materials used, insurance, and freight. The appellant paid duty under protest initially, filed a refund claim later, which was rejected. The Tribunal found that the notification's wording was clear, and there was no ambiguity. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, stating that the duties were wholly exempt except for customs duty based on the fair cost of repairs. The impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of change of address and appointment of a Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and interpreted Notification No. 46/2017 regarding exemption on re-imported aircraft engines and parts. The judgment clarified the applicability of the moratorium, upheld the appellant's interpretation of the notification, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.