TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was required to reverse 8% of the value of goods cleared to units located in Kandla Special Economic Zone during the relevant period, and whether the change in status from Kandla Free Trade Zone to Kandla Special Economic Zone affected entitlement to exemption and credit reversal under the Central Excise regime.
Analysis: The relevant excise provisions continued to refer to the notified area in substance, and the survey numbers covered by Rule 2(8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained the same even after the change of nomenclature. The credit-reversal provisions were treated as operating in harmony with the exemption scheme, and the later notification was understood as clarificatory, formalising the continuity of benefit for supplies to units in the same notified area. On that basis, the change from Free Trade Zone to Special Economic Zone did not justify denial of the exemption benefit or insistence on reversal of 8% of the value of the clearances.
Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to reverse 8% of the value of the goods cleared to the units in the notified area, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The order setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty was sustained, and the Revenue appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the notified area and the nature of the beneficiary units remain substantively unchanged, a mere change in designation of the zone does not extinguish the exemption benefit or create a fresh obligation to reverse credit.
TaxTMI 
