https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246655 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for clearances made to SEZ developers/units. The judge found that clearances to one SEZ developer should be treated as exports, not exempted goods, making Rule 6(3) inapplicable. For the other company, the demand was set aside based on Rule 6(6)(i) provisions as the company maintained a manufacturing unit in the SEZ during the dispute period. The judgment cited legal provisions and precedents supporting the appellant's arguments, ultimately allowing the appeal and overturning the department's decision. en-us Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:38:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246655 The court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for clearances made to SEZ developers/units. The judge found that clearances to one SEZ developer should be treated as exports, not exempted goods, making Rule 6(3) inapplicable. For the other company, the demand was set aside based on Rule 6(6)(i) provisions as the company maintained a manufacturing unit in the SEZ during the dispute period. The judgment cited legal provisions and precedents supporting the appellant's arguments, ultimately allowing the appeal and overturning the department's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246655