Page 47 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A105

List the matter on 20-11-2019 for final disposal.”
The Delhi High Court in its impugned order had held that the product
Kindle device falling under Tariff Item 8543 70 99 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975,
the primary function of which is to enable user to read e-books and not to trans-
late or to perform dictionary function, cannot be considered as electrical ma-
chines with translation or dictionary functions and therefore, not eligible to the
benefit of exemption under Serial No. 26 of Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. on its
import.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. K.K. Venugopal, AG, Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, Mr.
B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Shar-
da Deshmukh, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh and Ms. Binu
Tamta, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
(1) Aircraft imported under Non-Scheduled Operator Pas-
senger Permit — Exemption not to be denied on
ground of its use by Directors and their close rela-
tives of group companies of importer when permit
granted by DGCA to operate as NSOP not cancelled
— Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus. and 61/2007-Cus.

(2) Demand alleging violation of post-import condition of
exemption notification — Enforcement of bond can-
not be ordered in absence of any proposal in show
cause notice
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice S.A.
Bobde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant on
8-1-2020 after condoning the delay dismissed the Civil Appeal Nos. 87-88 of 2020
filed by Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi against the
CESTAT Final Order No. C/A/53139/2018-CU(DB), dated 15-10-2018 as report-
ed in 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1317 (Tri.-Del.) (Reliance Transport & Travels Ltd. v. Com-
missioner). While dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court passed the follow-
ing order :
“Delay condoned.
Having heard Learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the
appellant and gone through the records of the case, we are of the consid-
ered opinion that the appeals, being devoid of any merit, are liable to be
dismissed and, are dismissed accordingly.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the exemp-
tion under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. read with Notification No. 61/2007-
Cus. as amended, cannot be denied in respect of import of aircraft alleging viola-
tion of post-import condition on the ground that the said aircraft was mainly
used as private aircraft by Directors, Executives and their close relatives, friends
of the group companies of the importer and not for Non-Scheduled Operator
Passenger Permit (NSOP) particularly when the permit granted by Director Gen-
eral Civil Aviation (DGCA) to operate as NSOP was not cancelled by DGCA but
same renewed from time to time.
The Tribunal had further held that the confirmation of demand by way
of enforcement of bond in respect of imported goods by alleging violation of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  47