Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AAR Customs - 2016 (9) TMI AAR This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (9) TMI 779 - AAR - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus for non-scheduled (charter) services.
2. Interpretation of exemption notification in light of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).
3. Public interest as a guiding factor for exemption notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus for non-scheduled (charter) services:

The applicant, M/S Prajesh Marketing Limited, sought to import aircraft for non-scheduled (charter) services and charter these aircraft to related companies for use by their top executives, directors, investors, promoters, and their family members/friends. The applicant argued that as long as the aircraft is used for revenue flights and the applicant is remunerated, the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus (Sr. No. 453) should be available. The applicant emphasized that the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) allow non-scheduled operators to operate revenue charter flights for related entities and individuals, provided it is for remuneration.

The Revenue contended that the exemption notification should be strictly construed and the use of the aircraft for personal purposes, even if remunerated, does not qualify for the exemption. They argued that the intended use is personal and not in the public interest, thus not covered by the notification.

2. Interpretation of exemption notification in light of Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR):

The applicant relied on Paragraph 2.5 of the CAR, which permits non-scheduled operators to operate revenue charter flights for related companies and individuals, provided it is for remuneration. The Revenue argued that CAR provisions cannot be invoked to interpret the exemption notification, emphasizing that the notification should be interpreted based on its own wording.

The judgment clarified that Explanation 2 to the notification allows the use of imported aircraft for both non-scheduled (passenger) services and non-scheduled (charter) services without violating the conditions of the import at a concessional rate of duty. It was noted that the CAR is part of the notification as per Explanation 1(c), and thus, the provisions of CAR can be invoked.

3. Public interest as a guiding factor for exemption notification:

The Revenue argued that the intended use of the aircraft is personal and not for public use, which is a necessary condition for the exemption. They asserted that public interest should be a guiding factor in granting exemptions.

The judgment observed that the Central Government has the authority to grant exemptions under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, if it is in the public interest. The notification in question was issued in public interest, and the benefit of the exemption is extended to operators who fulfill the conditions mentioned therein. Therefore, it was incorrect to state that the applicant does not fall within the scope of the notification.

Final Ruling:

The benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus is available to NSOP holders for the following categories of revenue flights, provided they are undertaken with published tariffs:
a) Use by the permit holder’s employees/directors and their family, not necessarily for business purposes.
b) Charter the aircraft to group companies for use by their employees/directors and their family, not necessarily for business purposes.
c) Lease the aircraft to group companies for use by their employees/directors and their family, not necessarily for business purposes.

The judgment clarified that the intended use of the aircraft, even if not for business purposes, does not disqualify the applicant from availing the exemption, as long as the flights are for remuneration.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates