<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Customs Duty Exemption for Aircraft: CAR 1999 Applies, Overruling King Rotors&#039; Misapplication of CAR 2010.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=65151</link>
    <description>Exemption from Customs Duty - Import of an aircraft that had been granted permit by the Director General of Civil Aviation, DGCA for operating non-scheduled (passenger) services - Applicability of CAR 1999 or CAR 2000 - The show cause notice was, however, adjudicated upon by order dated 27.07.2010. Thus, it would be the CAR 1999 that would be applicable and not CAR 2010. The two decisions in Sameer Gehlot and King Rotors could not, therefore, have been distinguished for the reason that CAR 2010 would apply and not CAR 1999. - The conclusion, therefore, that emerges is that King Rotors does not lay down the correct position of law. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:02:21 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:02:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs Duty Exemption for Aircraft: CAR 1999 Applies, Overruling King Rotors&#039; Misapplication of CAR 2010.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=65151</link>
      <description>Exemption from Customs Duty - Import of an aircraft that had been granted permit by the Director General of Civil Aviation, DGCA for operating non-scheduled (passenger) services - Applicability of CAR 1999 or CAR 2000 - The show cause notice was, however, adjudicated upon by order dated 27.07.2010. Thus, it would be the CAR 1999 that would be applicable and not CAR 2010. The two decisions in Sameer Gehlot and King Rotors could not, therefore, have been distinguished for the reason that CAR 2010 would apply and not CAR 1999. - The conclusion, therefore, that emerges is that King Rotors does not lay down the correct position of law. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2022 16:02:21 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=65151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>