<?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>2022 (9) TMI 1300 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428355</link>
    <description>Customs exemption under Condition 104 of Notification No. 61/2007-Customs is described as available where imported aircraft are approved for use only in non-scheduled passenger or non-scheduled charter services, and charter or lease operations are not excluded merely because they involve group-company carriage, long-term contracts, absence of tickets, or no published tariff. The text also states that a demand or confiscation cannot be sustained on a ground not set out in the show-cause notice: the allegation that the non-scheduled operator&#039;s permit had been transferred to VAPL, being absent from the notice, could not support the action against Helicopters AZU and AZV. The exemption objection on use was rejected, while the demand and confiscation were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2022 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1300 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428355</link>
      <description>Customs exemption under Condition 104 of Notification No. 61/2007-Customs is described as available where imported aircraft are approved for use only in non-scheduled passenger or non-scheduled charter services, and charter or lease operations are not excluded merely because they involve group-company carriage, long-term contracts, absence of tickets, or no published tariff. The text also states that a demand or confiscation cannot be sustained on a ground not set out in the show-cause notice: the allegation that the non-scheduled operator&#039;s permit had been transferred to VAPL, being absent from the notice, could not support the action against Helicopters AZU and AZV. The exemption objection on use was rejected, while the demand and confiscation were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>