https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779221 HC dismissed the petition, holding the goods fell within Rule 25 of SEZ Rules rather than Rule 27(9). The court found the unit failed to utilize imported goods within the validity/extended period under Rule 37 and Rule 12(5); earlier administrative decisions to seek refund of customs duty and concessions were valid. A subsequent fresh extension request did not negate the prior decision, and no grounds warranted interference under Article 226. The claim based on promissory estoppel/legitimate expectation was rejected. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779221 HC dismissed the petition, holding the goods fell within Rule 25 of SEZ Rules rather than Rule 27(9). The court found the unit failed to utilize imported goods within the validity/extended period under Rule 37 and Rule 12(5); earlier administrative decisions to seek refund of customs duty and concessions were valid. A subsequent fresh extension request did not negate the prior decision, and no grounds warranted interference under Article 226. The claim based on promissory estoppel/legitimate expectation was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779221