Case Details: Hal Transport Aircraft Division Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi (2026) 39 Centax 358 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ms Binu Tamta, Member (J) & Ms Hemambika R. Priya, Member (T)
- Ms Priyanka Rathi & Ms Priyanshi Chakarborty, Advs., for the appellant.
- Shri Shiv Shankar, Authorised Representative, for the respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported fire extinguishers and their parts and claimed the benefit of exemption under Sr. No. 545 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus, dated 30-06-2017 by treating the said goods as parts of aircraft. The department disputed the claim and alleged that fire extinguishers could not be regarded as aircraft parts within the meaning of the notification and therefore the concessional rate of duty had been wrongly availed. On this basis, proceedings were initiated and a demand of differential customs duty including IGST was confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation. The assessee contended that the fire extinguishers were specifically designed for use in Su-30 MKI aircraft and were mandatory for obtaining certification of safety of flight. Reliance was placed on a declaration issued by the Ministry of Defence stating that such fire extinguishers were essential for aircraft safety and were specifically meant for the said aircraft. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the declaration issued by the Ministry of Defence clearly established that the fire extinguishers were mandatory for the issuance of a certificate of safety of flight and were specifically designed for use in Su-30 MKI aircraft. The tribunal observed that equipment which is indispensable for safe operation and certification of an aircraft may qualify as an integral part of the aircraft. In view of such evidence, the tribunal found that the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation could not be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. Dilip Kumar & Company — 2018 (362) E.L.T. 866 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Commissioner v. Hyundai Unitech Electrical Transmission Ltd. — 2015 (323) E.L.T. 220 (SC) — Followed [Paras 6, 8]
- Commissioner v. MAK Controls & Systems (P) Ltd. — 2005 (183) E.L.T. A73 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 6, 8]
- High Energy Batteries v. Commissioner — 2002 (142) E.L.T. 266 (Tri. – Chennai) — Followed [Paras 6, 8]
- Lapp India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (363) E.L.T. 383 (Tri. – Bang.) — Followed [Paras 7, 8]
- MAK Controls v. Commissioner — 2001 (138) E.L.T. 1152 (Tri. – Chennai) — Followed [Paras 6, 8]
- Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2007 (211) E.L.T. 534 (SC) — Referred [Para 4]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 [Paras 1, 2, 4]
