TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The brief facts that arises for consideration are the appellant company is a unit approved to carry out authorized operations within the Kandla Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as KASEZ ) and were specifically authorized to do the operations of import of goods in all forms or in connection with export of cosmetic skin care products and toilet preparations like perfumes, and beauty products. The Revenue authorities were of the view that as per the definition of manufacturing of goods in the SEZ Act, 2005, the appellant herein has to carry out some manufacturing activity and then only clear the products to DTA unit. After investigating and recording the statements of various persons, the lower authorities felt that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would amount to manufacture under the definition of manufacture in the SEZ Act. He would also submit that there are various decisions of the judicial forum which indicates that testing, packing and checking would amount to manufacture. He would also submit that the definition in the SEZ Act of manufacture has to be construed widely and not narrowly. It is the submission that the entire show-cause notice is hit by limitation as the show-cause notice is issued on 21/06/2010, while the demands are for the period from February, 2006 to December, 2009. It is his submission that the extended time beyond the period of 6 months cannot be invoked in this case as there was no mis-declaration. It is his submission that the appellant had always indica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of KASEZ informing the appellant regarding eligibility of DTA benefit. It is his submission that the said letter also informs the appellant that the operations carried out by the appellant would amount to manufacturing activity. 6. The Ld. Departmental representative reiterated the findings of the lower authority. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we finds that the issue involved in this case is regarding the leviability of additional duty of customs under Sub-section-5 of Section-3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 (commonly known as CVD). We find that the appellant is a unit situated at KASEZ with proper letter of authority issued by the Development Commissioner of KASEZ. The contention of appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding limitation, I find that there was willful suppression of facts and mis-declaration on their part to the effect that the goods were shown to be manufactured in the DTA bills of entry when actually they were not manufactured. Because of this the customs duty got evaded. Further, the clearance from a SEZ unit is on self declaration basis. It was only after intelligence was gathered that it came to the knowledge of the Department that the said unit was evading payment of Additional duty by misusing the exemption Noti.No.45/2005 Customs dated 16/05/2005. Thus I hold that the extended period of limitation is available to the department for issue of this show cause notice. 10. It can be seen from the above referred findings of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finished goods would not be sufficient to hold so. 11. We also note that the said decision of the Tribunal was not accepted by the Revenue and was taken in appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat and the appeal was dismissed by the Hon ble High Court. 12. We find that the appellant could have entertained a bona-fide belief that their activities would not amount to manufacture under SEZ Act. Our view is also fortified by the fact that the office of the Development Commissioner of KASEZ had written a letter to the appellant which we reproduce: Kandla Special Economic Zone No.KASEZ/IA/1165/84/Vol.III/2075 Dated June 19,2001. M/s.Baccarose Perfumes & Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.3/1, Sector-III Kandla Special ....