2025 (6) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aircraft gulf stream G-200 valued at Rs. 72,23,38,902/- (Rupees Seventy two Crore, twenty three lakh, thirty eight thousand, nine hundred two only) under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to PAPL to redeem the same after paying Rs. 15 crores (Rupees Fifteen crores only) as redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) I confirm the demand of Customs duty Rs. 17,89,23,346/- (Rupees Seventeen crore eighty nine lakh twenty three thousand three hundred forty six only) as per the undertaking given by the PLAL at the time of importation when read with Supreme Court's judgments in the case of Commissioner of Customs versus Jagdish Cancer & Research - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) &n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led a reply dated 08.06.2008 and denied the allegations made therein. However, by order dated 21.06.2010 the Commissioner, Preventive confirmed the demand. The operative part of the order has already been quoted above. 4. A perusal of the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Preventive indicates that the appellant was granted permission for operating NSOP (services), but the appellant did not use it for passenger service and had used it for chartering out the same to group companies of the appellant and other against lump-sum payment of agreed amount. The reason that has stated is that appellant did not issue tickets, but charged a lump-sum payment. The relevant paragraphs of the order are reproduced below :- "30. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., I hold that there is no violation of the FTP and confiscation under Section 111 (d) is not warranted. However, as discussed in para 19, 25 & 26 of this order permit No. 19/2008 dated 26.06.08 was issued to PLAL for conducting Non-Scheduled (Passenger) operations only whereas they have utilized the aircraft for Non-Scheduled (charter) operations when they were not having any permit for the same". 5. Case has been called out, but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have heard Shri Rajesh Singh, learned authorized representative appearing for the department and have perused the records. 6. The issue as to whether NSOP (passenger) can be used for Charter purposes has been decided by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, Delhi- 2022 (9) TMI 807 - CESTAT New Delhi  affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court- 2023 (3) TMI 595 - Delhi High Court   (ii) M/s. Global Vectra Helicorp Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House -2022 (9) TMI 1300 - CESTAT New Delhi  affirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court (iii) M/s. Taneja Aerospace and Avaition Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, Delhi- 2023 (3) TMI 304 (Delhi HC)  affirmed by Hon'ble High Court (iv) M/s. Chimes Aviation Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi- 203 (1) TMI 1056 - CESTAT New Delhi   (v) M/s. Ligare Aviation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Cust....