Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.