VAT - To impeach an order on ground of moral impropriety, it is to be shown that weight of facts together with applicable law overwhelmingly points to one course of action but decision has surprisingly gone other way: SC

Cus - Accountant admits that BIS certificate was prepared by him using editable excel sheets - This corroborates allegation that certificate was fake - Import illegal, confiscation upheld: HC

Cus - Aircraft was used by Chairman and officials of appellant - Appellant has not used aircraft for providing air transport service for remuneration of any kind - Appellant has not complied with Condition No. 104 of 21/2002-Cus: HC

2023-TIOL-11-SC-VAT

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs Excise And Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority

Whether dismissal of writ petition by high court on ground that assessee has not availed alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case was made out for such entertainment would not be proper - YES: SC Whether jurisdictional issue raised by assessee in writ petition questioning very competence of Revisional Authority to exercise suo motu power, being pure question of law, deserve consideration on merits - YES: SC Whether to impeach an order on ground of moral impropriety, it has to be shown that weight of facts together with applicable law overwhelmingly points to one course of action but decision has surprisingly gone other way, giving reason to suspect misbehaviour or misconduct in sphere of activity of the decision maker warranting a revision - YES: SC

- Assessee's appeal allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023-TIOL-157-HC-DEL-CUS

Mohit Industries Vs CC

Cus - Adjudicating Authority had found that the goods imported by the appellant were covered under the fake BIS Certificate and the import did not conform to the standards as specified - The CIT (Appeals) did not disturb any of the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and by an order dated 25.10.2019, rejected the appellant's appeal - CESTAT also found no merit in the appellant's appeal, therefore, the present appeal u/s 130A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Held : Statement made by Mr Manoj Kumar (Accountant) - which is not disputed clearly indicates that the BIS Certificate was prepared by him and corroborate the allegation that the BIS Certificate was fake - The communication received from the Indian subsidiary/agent of the manufacturer, M/s Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation confirms that the BIS Certificate, which purportedly issued to it, is fake - No merit in the present appeal - Appeal dismissed: High Court [para 8, 9]

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-156-HC-DEL-CUS

East India Hotels Ltd Vs CC, CE & CGST

Cus - Tribunal held that the aircraft imported by the appellant was used for private purposes and not for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services or non-scheduled (charter) services and thus, the Condition No. 104 of the Notification 21/2002-CUS, as amended by Customs Notification 61/2007-CUS was violated – Accordingly, Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal assailing an order dated 27.07.2010 by its order dated 14.01.2020 – Appellant has filed an appeal against this order.

Held: The aircraft was used by the Chairman and the officials of the appellant, who frequently travelled to various destinations - Admittedly, the flights operated by the appellant were non-revenue flights - For a service to fall within the meaning of 'air transport service' as defined in Rule 3(9) of the Aircraft Rules, it is essential that the same is provided for some kind of remuneration - Clearly, flight service for no remuneration at all would not qualify to be considered as air transport service within the meaning of sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 of the Aircraft Rules - In the facts of the present case, the appellant has used the aircraft for its own use without any remuneration whatsoever, either from the passengers transported by it or from any other person - In the circumstances, it would be difficult to accept that the appellant has used the aircraft for providing 'air transport service' within the meaning of Rule 3(9) of the Aircraft Rules - The only question that this Court is concerned with is whether the appellant has complied with the conditions as set out in the Notification and is entitled to duty exemption in terms of the Notification in respect of the import of the aircraft - And, as stated above, Bench finds that the appellant has not complied with the condition of using the aircraft solely for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services - In the present case, the appellant has not used the aircraft for providing air transport service for remuneration of any kind - In view of the above, even though Bench is not in agreement with the Tribunal that the provision of non-scheduled (passenger) services as defined under clause (b) of explanation to Condition No. 104 of the Notification entails providing air transport services to public at large on payment of published tariff; Bench agrees with the conclusion that the appellant has not complied with the Condition No. 104 of the Notification - The question as framed in paragraph No. 4 above is answered in the negative, with the aforesaid qualification - The appeal is disposed of: High Court [para 26, 31, 32, 40, 45 to 47]

- Appeal disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT