TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. They are having a registered office at 3, Alipore Road, Satyam Towers, Kolkata and their unit is located at Shed No. 2, Sector-2, Falta Special Economic Zone, Falta, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, who were granted Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 24.08.2007 by the Development Commissioner, Falta SEZ ('FSEZ' for short) to set up a manufacturing unit within Falta, to carry out manufacturing activities except prohibited goods for import/export. The unit had executed a Bond Cum Legal Undertaking dated 08.03.2013 which was duly accepted by the Development Commissioner, FSEZ, binding themselves to abide by all the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 and the SEZ Rules, 2006 and the rules and orders made thereunder in respect of the goods for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited v. Commissioner of Customs, Airport and Administration Kolkata vide Final Order No. 75617/2020 dated 18.11.2020 in Appeal No. C/75098/2020 the issue has been settled in favour of the appellant. In view of this, he prays that the impugned order be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the Revenue supported the impugned order. 7. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 8. We find that the issue involved in this case is whether the benefit of Notification No. 45/2005- Cus(Triff) dated 16.05.2005 as amended vide Notification No. 18/2011-Cus(Tariff) dated 01.03.2011. As amended, granting exemption from SAD is available in respect of plastic ball pen and parts cleared from the SEZ unit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on/test governing the exemption gets attracted only if the goods which are the subject matter of clearance, when sold in the DTA, are exempted from the payment of Sales Tax/VAT. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the clearance of blanks to the "DTA" is not by way of sale and that the underlying goods are not exempted by the State Government from the levy of VAT. The adjudicating Authority has himself accepted that such blanks attract VAT @ 5% as Ball Pen parts and the same is also evident from a sample Tax Invoice dated 20 April 2014 enclosed as part of the Appeal Paper Book. Therefore, the proviso is not attracted at all. There is no exemption from VAT/Sales Tax but just a deferral of the VAT/Sales Tax liability until the sale take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and (b) both, now contain an exclusion clause for goods produced or manufactured in Special Economic Zones from payment of Cenvat. Section 5A, however, continued without corresponding change. In the proviso in clause (1). the reference to „or a Special Economic Zone‟ continued. It appears that the same was to be omitted from a date to be notified. Such notification has not been issued. Today, therefore, Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 continues to contain a reference to a Special Economic Zone in the proviso providing that any exemption granted by a notification under Section 5A would not apply to any goods produced or manufactured in Special Economic Zone and brought to any other place in India. This omission to omi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... continue on SEZ units when local manufacturers were exempt has seen to be gathered from the language used in Section 30 of SEZ Act and not from proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 5A of Central Excise Act. Even otherwise, Section 51 of SEZ Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act. Thus, the entire legislative scheme has undergone a change by introduction of SEZ Act and the changes made in the Central Excise Act in this regard. [As discussed earlier, legislative intention emerging is that a SEZ unit will have no liability to pay countervailing duty, if the local manufacturer of like goods is exempt from payment of whole of such duty]." 8. In the present case, the impugned order itself records at para 12.11 that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the amendment. We find that Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, was amended by Finance Act,2016(28of 2016) w.e.f. 14-5-2016. It provides for demanding duty within 2 years in cases not involving collusion, misstatement etc. we find that the counsel is attempting to equate the issuance of SCN with commission of any offence. In the instance case, the imports being undertaken for the period April-December 2014, normal period, as per the provision of law existing on that day, ends in October, 2015. Therefore, the issue is beyond normal period by the time the amendment came in to force. Therefore, we find that the department cannot issue Show ca....