TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eafter 'the impugned order') in Customs Appeal No. 640/2010 and Customs Appeal No. 642/2010, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal'). 2. The respondent had filed the appeal being Customs Appeal No. 640 of 2010, impugning an order-in-original dated 31.08.2010, whereby the Adjudicating Authority (Commissioner of Customs) had, inter alia, raised a demand of Rs.57,42,63,453/- (Rupees fifty seven crore, forty two lakhs, sixty three thousand, four hundred and fifty three only) and further imposed a penalty of Rs.16,00,00,000/- (Rupees sixteen crore only) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter 'the Customs Act'). In addition, the Adjudicating Authority had also directed confisca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to have been violated only when the DGCA finds that the use of the aircraft is not in accordance with the permit granted by DGCA for non-scheduled(passenger) service and only in that event the Customs authority can demand duty in terms of undertaking. In the present case, the DGCA has not found the use of the aircraft by appellant to be in violation of permit for non-scheduled (passenger) service and in fact has renewed the permit year after year. There is, therefore, no violation of the undertaking and, therefore, Customs cannot demand duty in terms of the undertaking. 36. It also needs to be noted that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal specifically held that the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in East India Hotels which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircraft for non-scheduled(passenger) services. 38. It is, therefore, for all the reasons stated above, not possible to sustain the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner in so far as it concerns the appellant. For these reasons, the penalty imposed upon Sudhir Nayak cannot also be sustained. 39. The impugned order dated 31.08.2010 is, accordingly, set aside and Customs Appeal No. 640 of 2010 and Customs Appeal No. 642 of2010 are allowed." 4. In the aforesaid context, the Revenue has projected the following questions for consideration of this Court: "i. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding that the Customs Authority cannot examine whether the appellants have fu....