Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer of the aircraft and spare parts, holding that the benefit of the exemption notification was rightly available. It found no violation of Condition 104, as operation of non-scheduled air transport services through charter operations, including for group companies against remuneration, satisfied the requirement of use for non-scheduled operations. Non-issuance of tickets and absence of published tariff did not defeat the exemption. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation under s. 28(4) Customs Act was unsustainable, as there was no specific finding of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the demand, interest and penalty were set aside and the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority was quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer of the aircraft and spare parts, holding that the benefit of the exemption notification was rightly available. It found no violation of Condition 104, as operation of non-scheduled air transport services through charter operations, including for group companies against remuneration, satisfied the requirement of use for non-scheduled operations. Non-issuance of tickets and absence of published tariff did not defeat the exemption. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation under s. 28(4) Customs Act was unsustainable, as there was no specific finding of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the demand, interest and penalty were set aside and the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
