https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336203 Failure to consider the petitioner's reliance on the circular dated 11.02.2010 and Notification No. 25/2016 dated 14.06.2016 concerning supplies to a Special Economic Zone rendered the excise demand order unsustainable. The Court found that the authority had proceeded on a different footing without meaningfully examining the amended exemption notification, the treatment of SEZ supplies as exports, and the contention that no duty accrues to the Government under the applicable export scheme. The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar interference in these circumstances. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after personal hearing and decision on merits in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336203 Failure to consider the petitioner's reliance on the circular dated 11.02.2010 and Notification No. 25/2016 dated 14.06.2016 concerning supplies to a Special Economic Zone rendered the excise demand order unsustainable. The Court found that the authority had proceeded on a different footing without meaningfully examining the amended exemption notification, the treatment of SEZ supplies as exports, and the contention that no duty accrues to the Government under the applicable export scheme. The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar interference in these circumstances. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration after personal hearing and decision on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336203