https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426481 Customs exemption for imported aircraft depended on aviation-law definitions and subsisting civil aviation approvals. The Larger Bench held that dismissal of the Revenue's civil appeal did not render the reference infructuous, charter operations by a non-scheduled passenger operator did not breach condition no. 104, and non-publication of tariff or absence of air tickets did not by itself violate the notification. The aircraft could not be treated as private aircraft, Customs could not test the validity of unrevoked DGCA permission on its own, CAR 2010 was explanatory and codificatory, and King Rotors was wrongly treated as per incuriam. en-us Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426481 Customs exemption for imported aircraft depended on aviation-law definitions and subsisting civil aviation approvals. The Larger Bench held that dismissal of the Revenue's civil appeal did not render the reference infructuous, charter operations by a non-scheduled passenger operator did not breach condition no. 104, and non-publication of tariff or absence of air tickets did not by itself violate the notification. The aircraft could not be treated as private aircraft, Customs could not test the validity of unrevoked DGCA permission on its own, CAR 2010 was explanatory and codificatory, and King Rotors was wrongly treated as per incuriam. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426481