https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218234 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in appeals concerning activities within the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ). It held that the appellant's activities, including spray testing, appearance checking, fragrance testing, and packing of goods, constituted manufacturing under the SEZ Act, overturning lower authorities' decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended limitation period under Section-28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was incorrectly applied due to lack of evidence of willful suppression, leading to the demands, penalties, and interest being set aside. The judgment clarified manufacturing interpretation under the SEZ Act and emphasized adherence to limitation periods under the Customs Act. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218234 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in appeals concerning activities within the Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ). It held that the appellant's activities, including spray testing, appearance checking, fragrance testing, and packing of goods, constituted manufacturing under the SEZ Act, overturning lower authorities' decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended limitation period under Section-28 of the Customs Act, 1962, was incorrectly applied due to lack of evidence of willful suppression, leading to the demands, penalties, and interest being set aside. The judgment clarified manufacturing interpretation under the SEZ Act and emphasized adherence to limitation periods under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218234