Case Details: Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (2026) 41 Centax 22 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
- S/Shri N Venkataraman, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, V C Bharathi, Udai Khanna, Udit Dediya, Vivek Gupta, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR, S/Shri V Lakshmikumaran, L Badri Narayanan, Swastik Mishra, Ms Nitum Jain, Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Swastik Mishra, Atreya Gc, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant imported aircraft engine stands and classified the same under Tariff Item 8609 00 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as containers designed for carriage by one or more modes of transport. The department disputed such classification and proposed classification under CTI 8716 39 00. Proceedings were initiated under the Customs Act, 1962, and the matter was adjudicated, after which the dispute was referred to the CESTAT. The appellant submitted that the engine stand was specially designed for safe transportation of aircraft engines across multiple modes and possessed features such as shock attenuation systems and securing mechanisms. The CESTAT accepted the contentions of the appellant and held the goods to be classifiable under Tariff Item 8609 00 00. On appeal by the department, the matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was a gross delay in filing the appeal, which had not been satisfactorily explained. It was observed that no good reason existed to interfere with the impugned order passed by the CESTAT. The Court declined to interfere both on the ground of delay as well as on the merits. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2026) 41 Centax 21 (Tri. – Del.) — Affirmed [Paras 2, 3 ]
