https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395491 A guideline under the SEZ policy framework cannot override statutory entitlements already flowing from the Special Economic Zones Act and Rules; the Court held that the 2015 guideline could not reclassify an approved co-developer power plant in the processing area as a non-processing area unit or deny operation and maintenance benefits. On excise recovery, the Court held that duty on HSD procured from the Domestic Tariff Area could not be demanded from the SEZ recipient by the Development Commissioner in the absence of statutory authority, since recovery lies against the manufacturer before the competent jurisdictional excise authority. The impugned guideline and consequential show cause notice were set aside. en-us Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Mar 2021 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395491 A guideline under the SEZ policy framework cannot override statutory entitlements already flowing from the Special Economic Zones Act and Rules; the Court held that the 2015 guideline could not reclassify an approved co-developer power plant in the processing area as a non-processing area unit or deny operation and maintenance benefits. On excise recovery, the Court held that duty on HSD procured from the Domestic Tariff Area could not be demanded from the SEZ recipient by the Development Commissioner in the absence of statutory authority, since recovery lies against the manufacturer before the competent jurisdictional excise authority. The impugned guideline and consequential show cause notice were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395491