9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cargo (hereinafter called the applicant Commr.) a notice to show cause in writing was issued by this Authority on 12-12-2000 read with Corrigendum on 16-2-2001 under Rule 13 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989 to M/s. Modi Luft (herein called the respondent) together with the grounds of appeal received from the applicant Commr. Since the matter originates from the same Order-in-Appeal, this common order is being issued for both the Revision Applications. 4. The applicant Commissioner s ground of appeal is based on the fact that the respondents have no regard for the IATT Act and Rules and they have deliberately, with criminal intention kept the Govt. dues for their personal gains; this calls for imposition of the maximum penalty. 5. The respondents in their revision application have pleaded that the deposits made by M/s. Air UK Leasing Ltd. in terms of the Hon ble Delhi High Court order in CW 110/97, dated 13-2-1998 got appropriated towards the IATT dues and hence it cannot be said that the same is still pending. That having recovered the dues before it was determined by the competent officer under Rule 5 of the IATT Rules, the Asstt. Commissioner redetermining the IATT d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms, Air Cargo. (x) 11-4-1997 - Pay order for Rs. 8 crore submitted by M/s. Air U.K. Leasing Ltd. was deposited by AC (IATT) into the treasury. (xi) 15-4-1997 - Even after deposit of Rs. 8 crore, Commr. refused to issue No Due Certificate for deregistration of the aircraft. (xii) 25-4-1997 - Delhi High Court in CW 1604 and CMs 2859 2898/97 allowed to deregister two out of three aircrafts (which were not distrained). (xiii) 2-5-1997 - CWP No. 1908 of 1997 filed by Air UK Leasing Ltd. before Delhi High Court. (xiv) 13-2-1998 - Single Member bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the WP No. 110/97. (xv) 18-2-1998 - Letter Patent Appeal No. 69/98 filed in Delhi High Court by Air UK Leasing Ltd. against dismissal of their WP No. 110/97. (xvi) 29-4-1998 - Petition filed in the Delhi High Court in CP No. 68/97 for winding up the respondents company - Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator by Court and directed him to take over all assets and books of the respondents company. (xvii) 23-7-1998 - Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be justified only if it is wholly unreasonable or perverse. 10.3 That the deposits of Rs. 8 crores and Rs. 4.5 crores made by Air UK Leasing in terms of Delhi High Court orders being in the nature of the IATT dues, the Court dismissing the WP No. 110/97 much against the pleadings in the petition by M/s. Air UK Leasing Ltd. the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) holding the said dues as payable only by the respondents (now in revision) would defeat the reason and purpose behind the final order of the Hon ble High Court. 10.4 That the orders of the Commr. (A) are self contradictory and patently erroneous inasmuch as, while the said authority accepts that the deposit of Rs. 12.5 crores was for the purpose of release of the distrained aircraft in question, its findings on page 6 says that the dues determined in the impugned order on account of IATT and interest thereon, are still unpaid . 10.5 That the TR-6 challans mention that the deposits are against the outstanding IATT dues of the respondents. The amount deposited by M/s. Air UK Leasing Ltd. have therefore, gone into the coffers of the Govt. under the head IATT dues payable by the respondent and not under any other head. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved appearing in sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the IATT Rules, 1989 does not cover Commissioner of Customs, though it covers others. In support of their averment reliance has been placed on the insertion of clause (1A) made vide sections 110 and 126 of the Finance Act, 1999 in respect of Sec. 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 35EE of the CEA, 1944 respectively empowering the Commissioner of Customs/Central Excise to review the orders of the Commr. (A) passed under the respective Acts. Thus the Commr. of Customs cannot be an aggrieved person implying thereby that the Department cannot file revision application against the impugned Order-in-Appeal. In this connection the apex court decision in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. v. HPF Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502 (S.C.) has been relied upon. 11.3 The Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the Northern Plastics case was with reference to the locus standi of even third parties. It was held that those who were not part of the original proceedings, but, might perhaps be treated to be legally aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs as an adjudicating authority may legitimately prefer an appeal to the CEGAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty based on his discretionary powers (exercised within the parameters of Sec. 46(3) of the Finance Act, 1989 as amended by the Finance Act, 1994). Hence Govt. finds no scope to interfere with the order. 13. As regards the plea that the IATT dues have been paid by the M/s. Air UK Leasing Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as lessor) and it cannot be demanded twice, it is observed that upon request of the lessor for release of the distrained aircraft, the Court had directed them to deposit the said sums due from the respondents. The matter has not yet come to a finality as a Letter Patent Appeal against the order of the single member bench is pending before the Hon ble Delhi High Court. Thus the deposits are subjudice and no orders relating thereto could be passed. If the Court orders return of the same, then it has to be complied with, whether or not these deposits were taken into the Consolidated Fund of India. In view of this position, it cannot be said that the IATT dues and the interests thereon have been already collected; hence the ratio of the case cited at para 10.6 (1963 48 ITR 206) (S.C.) cannot be applied to this case. The respondents having failed to honour their commitm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
