<?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>Exemption for imported aircraft upheld; charter use qualifies as non-scheduled service; extended limitation under Section 28(4) rejected</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94518</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer of the aircraft and spare parts, holding that the benefit of the exemption notification was rightly available. It found no violation of Condition 104, as operation of non-scheduled air transport services through charter operations, including for group companies against remuneration, satisfied the requirement of use for non-scheduled operations. Non-issuance of tickets and absence of published tariff did not defeat the exemption. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation under s. 28(4) Customs Act was unsustainable, as there was no specific finding of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the demand, interest and penalty were set aside and the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:50:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:50:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Exemption for imported aircraft upheld; charter use qualifies as non-scheduled service; extended limitation under Section 28(4) rejected</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94518</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the importer of the aircraft and spare parts, holding that the benefit of the exemption notification was rightly available. It found no violation of Condition 104, as operation of non-scheduled air transport services through charter operations, including for group companies against remuneration, satisfied the requirement of use for non-scheduled operations. Non-issuance of tickets and absence of published tariff did not defeat the exemption. CESTAT further held that invocation of the extended period of limitation under s. 28(4) Customs Act was unsustainable, as there was no specific finding of deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the demand, interest and penalty were set aside and the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority was quashed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2025 13:50:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>