https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426481 The Larger Bench concluded that the appellants did not violate the conditions of the exemption notification, the aircraft can be used for charter services, it cannot be classified as a private aircraft, and the customs authority does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of DGCA's permission. The requirement to issue air tickets is not mandatory, and CAR 2010 is explanatory in nature. The decision in King Rotors was incorrect in holding that Sameer Gehlot was rendered per incuriam. The appeals are to be listed before the regular division bench for hearing. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426481 The Larger Bench concluded that the appellants did not violate the conditions of the exemption notification, the aircraft can be used for charter services, it cannot be classified as a private aircraft, and the customs authority does not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of DGCA's permission. The requirement to issue air tickets is not mandatory, and CAR 2010 is explanatory in nature. The decision in King Rotors was incorrect in holding that Sameer Gehlot was rendered per incuriam. The appeals are to be listed before the regular division bench for hearing. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426481