TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi that imposes duty liability with penalty upon the appellant. 3. Customs Appeal No. 261 of 2011 has been filed by Amit Rai Sood, Director of the appellant, to assail that portion of the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi that imposes duty liability and penalty upon the appellant. 4. Customs Appeal No. 262 of 2011 has been filed by Yoginder Dhawan, Ex-employee of the appellant, to assail that portion of the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi that imposes duty liability and penalty upon the appellant. 5. Customs Appeal No. 263 of 2011 has been filed by Ajay Enterprises Pvt Ltd, subsequent purchasers of Mercedes Benz Car, to assail that portion of the order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi that confirms the duty liability and penalty upon the appellant with redemption fine under section 125 of the Customs Act. 6. Customs Appeal No. 264 of 2011 has been filed by Ajay Enterprises Pvt Ltd, subsequent pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt submitted that as the issues involved in theses appeals are covered by a Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in Interglobe Enterprises Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi- Customs Appeal No. 124 o f2010 decided on 20.11.2025 as wells as a decision of a Division Bench of this Tribunal in M/s. Bestech Hospitalities Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi- 2025(8) TMI 509-CESTAT NEW DELHI, the appeals should be allowed. 17. Shri N.M. Goyal, learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call for any interference in this appeal. Learned authorized representative also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Surya Samudra Holiday Resorts Pvt Ltd vs. CC (Export) Mumbai- 2010 (256)ELT 433(Tri-Mumbai) 18. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 19. A perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in Interglobe Enterprises clearly indicates that the issue involved in this appeal is indeed covered by the said decision of the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is reported. As regards the mandatory registration of these vehicles as Tourist/Commercial vehicles prior to this date, there appears to be violation of Motor Vehicles Act on account of use of private registered vehicles for commercial purposes. However, this aspect has to be looked into by the Regional Transport Authority concerned and DRI is at liberty to approach RTA concerned for seeking appropriate action to be taken by that authority on this score. 4. As regards 2 issue at 2(ii) above, in the working of hotel, tourism and travel service industry the vehicles are part of an overall package drawn by these service providers for the tourists. This package may include hotel accommodation, food, beverages and travel cost and charges for utilizing imported vehicles would not be billed separately to the tourist. It is therefore not practically possible for these sectors to show export earnings separately from use of these vehicles. Therefore, the views expressed by the DRI or this score cannot be accepted and all benefits including all earnings for providing hotel accommodation, sale of food and beverages, apart from transportation of the tourist, should be considered towar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. 18. In the instant case, the holding of the EODCs was determinative of completing their export obligations towards the import of the three cars. We note that copies of logbooks of all the 3 vehicles were submitted to the departmental authorities establishing the use of the said three vehicles for transporting guests and used in other tourism related activities. The Department has led no evidence to the contrary. Hence, we hold that the appellant had completed his export obligation and the issuance of EODCs by DGFT are determinative of the same." 22. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in Bestech Hospitalities. The relevant paragraphs of this decision dealing with the issues are reproduced below: "19. The issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the demand could be confirmed with consequent penalties for violation of the conditions of the Notification, when the EODC was issued in favour of the appellant evidencing fulfilment of export obligation and it has not been cancelled till date. 20. The first submission that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since that export obliga....