TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tor of the Company while Appeal No. C/47/2012 is filed by the Company. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of appearance, fragrance etc. of some of the products and then packing them 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 21-6-2010, 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as manufacturing process. He also take us through letter No. KASEZ/IA/1165/84/Vol-III/9144, dated 19th June, 2001 written by Deputy Development Commissioner 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount to manufacture. The Adjudicating Authority while dealing with the limitation issue has recorded following findings : "As regards their contention regarding limitation, I find that there was wilful 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 16-5-2005. Thus I hold that the exten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e covered under the concept of manufacture, as there is no finding that the goods were marketable de hors all or any one of these process; the bland allegations of deodorant cans to be 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 reprodu....