https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78167 The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of differential duty u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for using a helicopter for NSOP (Charter) despite having a permit for NSOP (Passenger). The Tribunal held that the permit for NSOP (Passenger) can be used for charter services based on previous rulings. The definition of 'Private Aircraft' was clarified, stating that if an aircraft is used for remuneration, it is considered a public transport aircraft. The appellant's use of the helicopter for commercial flights fell under the category of 'Private Aircraft'. As the helicopter was used for non-scheduled (Passenger) services, there was no violation of the exemption notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:39:59 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:39:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78167 The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of differential duty u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for using a helicopter for NSOP (Charter) despite having a permit for NSOP (Passenger). The Tribunal held that the permit for NSOP (Passenger) can be used for charter services based on previous rulings. The definition of 'Private Aircraft' was clarified, stating that if an aircraft is used for remuneration, it is considered a public transport aircraft. The appellant's use of the helicopter for commercial flights fell under the category of 'Private Aircraft'. As the helicopter was used for non-scheduled (Passenger) services, there was no violation of the exemption notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Customs Wed, 05 Jun 2024 10:39:59 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78167