https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465093 CESTAT (Allahabad) resolved the earlier difference of opinion by accepting the view of the Member (Judicial) that alleged irregularities regarding invalid LOA and non-maintenance of records by SEZ Unit (Appellant No.1) fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Development Commissioner under the SEZ Act and SEZ Rules. It held that the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 111(o) of the Customs Act for absolute confiscation of the seized gold or to impose penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA. Rule 47 of the SEZ Rules, concerning DTA sales, was found inapplicable. The Member (Technical)'s contrary view was rejected, and the matter was placed before the Regular Division Bench to record the majority view accordingly. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 18:35:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465093 CESTAT (Allahabad) resolved the earlier difference of opinion by accepting the view of the Member (Judicial) that alleged irregularities regarding invalid LOA and non-maintenance of records by SEZ Unit (Appellant No.1) fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Development Commissioner under the SEZ Act and SEZ Rules. It held that the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 111(o) of the Customs Act for absolute confiscation of the seized gold or to impose penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA. Rule 47 of the SEZ Rules, concerning DTA sales, was found inapplicable. The Member (Technical)'s contrary view was rejected, and the matter was placed before the Regular Division Bench to record the majority view accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465093