Image
Case Details: Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) Versus Inter Globe Aviation Ltd. (2025) 32 Centax 361 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- B.V. NAGARATHNA and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
- Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv., S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., V.C. Bharathi, Padmesh Mishra, Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Advs. and Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Ayush Agarwal, Ms. Neha Choudhary, Ms. Umang Motiyani, Ms. Nitum Jain, Advs. and Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent-assessee had exported aircraft and parts/components abroad for repairs and, upon reimport, claimed exemption from IGST under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus., dated 30-06-2017. The Department denied the exemption, relying on the interpretation that IGST was leviable under Section 5 of the IGST Act. CESTAT, in an earlier decision reported at 2020 (43) G.S.T.L. 410 (Tri. – Del.), held that ‘duty of customs’ in column (3) at Sl. No. (2) of the table in Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. referred only to customs duty on the fair cost of repairs, including insurance and freight, and not to IGST, which was therefore exempted. During the pendency of litigation, Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. was amended by Notification No. 36/2021-Cus., dated 19-07-2021, substituting the words ‘duty of customs’ with ‘said duty, tax or cess’, thereby withdrawing the IGST exemption. The amended notification used phrases such as ‘it is clarified’ and ‘for removal of doubt’, and the Department, based on CBIC clarification, confirmed IGST demands for periods prior to 19-07-2021. CESTAT held that the amendment was substantive in nature, imposed an additional tax burden, and did not confer any benefit on the assessee. It thus concluded that the amendment was prospective and exemption continued to apply up to 18-07-2021, and the matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no interference was required with the order of CESTAT, resulting in dismissal of the Department’s appeal. It was held that in the absence of any stipulation in Notification No. 36/2021-Cus., dated 19-07-2021, providing for retrospective effect, the same would operate prospectively from the date of its issuance. The Court rejected the Department’s plea that the notification was clarificatory, observing that merely using the expressions ‘it is clarified’ and ‘for removal of doubt’ was insufficient to infer retrospective intent, especially when the amendment imposed additional IGST liability. Accordingly, the exemption under Notification No. 45/2017-Cus. dated 30-06-2017 was held to be applicable on reimport of aircraft and parts/components after repairs for the period up to 18-07-2021.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2024) 23 Centax 81 (Tri. – Del.) — Affirmed [Paras 3, 4]
