Conditional customs exemption for helicopter imports and prima facie limitation findings shaped partial stay relief.

Exemption for helicopters imported under the notification was treated as conditional on compliance with the specified requirements for non-scheduled passenger or charter services. At the stay stage, the Tribunal found the department's reading prima facie sustainable because the helicopters were on long-term lease, were not shown to be available to the public at large, and the published tariff condition for charter services was absent. The dispute was considered contentious, so penalties were viewed prima facie as unsustainable in part, but full waiver of the duty demand was not granted. On limitation, one set of appeals failed because the demand arose from the bond, while another showed a prima facie limitation bar where no suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement was alleged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the customs duty demand and penalties arising from import of helicopters under the exemption notification; (ii) whether the demand in one set of appeals was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the customs duty demand and penalties arising from import of helicopters under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification was available only where the aircraft was imported for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services or non-scheduled (charter) services in accordance with the stated conditions. The helicopters were placed on long-term lease and were not shown to be available to the public at large. In the case of charter services, the notification required a published tariff, which was absent. The interpretation advanced by the appellants that any non-scheduled use would suffice was not accepted at this stage, and the Tribunal found the Commissioner's reading of the conditions to be prima facie sustainable. At the same time, the dispute was regarded as contentious, and the penalties were viewed prima facie as not sustainable.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to full waiver on the duty demand, but pre-deposit of the balance dues beyond the directed amount and the penalty against one appellant were waived, subject to compliance in the first set of appeals, and complete waiver was granted in the second set of appeals.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand in one set of appeals was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand was found to arise from the bond executed by the importer, and no sufficient basis was shown for invoking limitation in that set of appeals. In the other set, there was no allegation of suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement in the impugned order, and the show-cause notice had been issued beyond the normal period, giving rise to a strong prima facie case on limitation.

Conclusion: Limitation was held not to apply in the first set of appeals, while the plea of limitation succeeded prima facie in the second set of appeals.

Final Conclusion: The applications were disposed of by granting partial interim relief overall, with conditional pre-deposit in one matter and complete waiver of pre-deposit in the other.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption for aircraft imported for non-scheduled passenger or charter services is conditional and requires compliance with the notification's operative requirements, including the published tariff condition for charter services; absent such compliance, full waiver of duty demand is not warranted at the stay stage.

---