TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Minutes of the 135th meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on 30th December, 2025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2025 conveyed vide email dated 09.04.2025. The appeal was filed under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt Ltd, a Warehousing Unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone. The appeal was filed against the decision taken vide Agenda Point No 212.2.11 during the 212th meeting of Unit Approval Committee of Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ), held on 28.03.2025. The request of the said Unit for inclusion of additional items in the approved list of LoA issued on 10.04.2021 for warehousing activities was considered during the 212th meeting of UAC vide Agenda Point No 212.2.11 and permission for certain sensitive items were denied. Being aggrieved with the said decision, the Unit filed an appeal on 29.04.2025. The Board in its 135th meeting held on 30.12.2025, heard the appellant virtually and the brief submission made by appellant are as follows: i. None of the provisions of SEZ law or instructions mandates that an FTWZ Unit or warehousing Unit in SEZ is required to take item/CTH wise approval from the UAC or Development Commissioner. ii. Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules, 2006 are not applicable in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19(2) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 to approve changes in items and activities, and the UAC's decision is therefore in accordance with the said Rules. v. Further, prayer of the appellant requires to be summarily rejected and no relief of any kind be granted to them and the decision of the UAC is a well reasoned as per past approval of not approving the sensitive items such as cigarettes, etc. Sensitive items (e.g., cigarettes) have been disallowed by Board of Approval (BoA) in past cases. [88th BoA meeting held on 25.02.2019 in the case of M/s. Zest Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the 74th BoA meeting held on 06.01.2017 in the case of M/s. A One Duty Free Pvt. Ltd.] The Board, after detailed deliberations, made the following observations: i. SEZs are foreign territory for Customs purposes and they are prone to circumvention of duty in respect of high risk and high duty value commodities. ii. DC has been authorised to recognize the risky commodities and deny permission for warehousing of such commodities. iii. KASEZ in its 116th meeting of UAC set up a procedure whereby warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior permission for inclusion o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, without imposing any item-specific restriction. iii. The authority failed to appreciate that cigarettes falling under CTH 24022090 are classified under the Free Import category. As per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), various varieties of cigarettes covered under CTH 2402 are freely importable by any importer in India. iv. The apprehension of UAC that cigarettes are a sensitive commodity and prone to diversion is baseless, as multiple entities in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are importing the same as the item is in free list. Therefore, putting restriction on SEZ Unit is unjustified, arbitrary, and unwarranted. v. The appellant is engaged exclusively in the business of providing warehousing services, and therefore treating the commodity as prone to diversion in the appellant's case is not justified. The DC, KASEZ made the following arguments against the contentions of the appellant: i. The UAC's decision in its 116th meeting held on 19.07.2017 mandates that warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior approval for each new item to be warehoused, along with submission of Know Your Customer (KYC) details for clients. This requirement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpowers UAC/DC to keep a strict watch on high risk commodity. ii. KASEZ in its 116th meeting of UAC set up a procedure whereby warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior permission for inclusion of any new items and submit client KYC before warehousing which were acknowledged by the appellant while accepting LoA. Accordingly, the Board, after taking into consideration the above submissions, upheld the decision of the UAC, KASEZ and rejected the above appeal of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division). 135.2(iii) Appeal dated 17.07.2025 filed by M/s Diligent Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd. in NSEZ under the provision of Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 against the decision of UAC meeting held on 05.06.2025. The appeal was filed under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by M/s Diligent Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd, a warehousing Unit in Free Trade and Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) developed by Arshiya Northern FTWZ Ltd. at Khurja, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh, under the jurisdiction of Noida Special Economic Zone (NSEZ) The appeal was filed against the NSEZ's Minutes of Meeting of Unit Approval Committee (UAC) bearing No. 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decision of the UAC vide 19.06.2025 may be quashed and set aside and the application for inclusion of the additional items (33 previous + 52 new) in the LoA of the Appellant be approved. The DC, NSEZ made following submissions in response to the contentions of the appellant: i. The CHA along with the DTA importer used fake documents wilfully mis- stating the Country of Origin of impugned goods as Afghanistan in the subject Bill of Entry filed, with intent to evade payment of Customs Duty. A fake Bank Guarantees were also submitted. CHA along with the DTA importer is engaged in manipulation, forging the documents and submitting fake documents to the department only for the purpose of evading payment of due customs duties on removal of their goods into DTA. ii. Mr. Rakesh Trikha is also the proprietor of the CHA "Diligent Logistics Solutions", directly implicated in providing fake COOs and forged bank guarantees. iii. A draft SCN has been forwarded by Noida Customs and no formal SCN has yet been served, however, the Specified Officer's report provides independent and credible documentary verification of misconduct. iv. The grounds raised b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....door caterer services, which form part of the default authorized services included in the uniform list of services approved by the Department of Commerce (F. No. D.12/19/2012013-SEZ dated 02.01.2018), and exemption cannot be denied on this basis. ii. The contract for supply is exclusively between the Appellant and Sodexo, and there is no privity of contract with the employees. Consequently, the Appellant is the recipient of the service, and not the employees, consistent with the legal principle that the contractual party and not the ultimate beneficiary is the correct service recipient for tax purposes (as upheld in Vodafone India Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 (66) GSTL 63 (Bom.). iii: In terms of Section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017, supplies of services to a SEZ Unit for its authorized operations are treated as zero-rated supplies, and since the services are received by the SEZ Unit for authorized operations, they qualify for zero-rating under GST; the ultimate fact that employees benefit from the food services is immaterial to the eligibility for exemption. iv. The UAC's reliance on Instruction No. 95 dated 11.06.2019, which prescribes conditions f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....distinct and separate from "outdoor caterer services" (SAC 996334) included in the default list of authorised services. As per the explanatory notes to Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and SEZ Instruction No. 79, outdoor catering services are event- based and occasional, whereas the impugned services are continuous, recurring and meant for daily consumption by employees. ii. The request of Unit for inclusion of other contract food service as authorized service is not tenable as it is not present in the default list of services for SEZs. iii. It was further submitted that employees are not SEZ units or developers, and supply of food to employees constitutes a personal benefit/incentive forming part of perks or salary, which does not qualify as authorised operations under the SEZ Act and Rules. Accordingly, such services are not eligible for zero- rated treatment or SEZ exemptions under Sections 7 or 26 of the SEZ Act. iv. DoC's Instruction no. 95 dated 11.06.2019, inter-alia, stipulates that the units shall not be eligible for any exemptions, drawback, concessions or any other benefit available under Section 7 or Section 26 of the SE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the prescribed limit. The Board in its 135th meeting held on 30.12.2025, heard the appellant virtually and the brief submissions made by appellant are as follows: i. The Appellant is engaged in the business of technology up gradation and refurbishment of second-generation hardware. All such re-engineered and upgraded products are certified by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), thereby ensuring compliance with prescribed standards of safety, quality, and performance. ii. The Appellant submitted that restriction of exports to overseas markets while expressly disallowing sales in the DTA, is contrary to Notification No. 13/2024-2025 dated 20.05.2024 issued by the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which permits such transactions. The impugned restriction has exposed the Appellant to substantial financial loss due to the inability to execute confirmed export and domestic supply orders. iii. The Appellant submits that BIS-certified re-engineered or upgraded products are equal to, and in many cases superior to, new products and do not cause any adverse environmental impact. iv. The decision of the UAC is arbitrary, suffers from non-app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the due diligence as prescribed in the Rule 18(4)(d) of SEZ Rules, 2006 and rightly put the condition that exports shall have one to one correlation with imports and all the reconditioned or repaired or re-engineered or upgraded products and scrap or remnants or waste shall be exported and none of these goods shall be allowed to be sold in the Domestic Tariff Area or destroyed. iii. Further, appellant contention regarding BIS certification citing DGFT Notification does not necessarily implies change in SEZ Act and Rules. iv. It appears that appellant is trying to take benefit of non-BIS standard imports in SEZ and then clearing finished goods as BIS certified to DTA. v. The UAC has already permitted Unit to export to overseas market ensuring one-to-one correlation with import, in-line with the overall purpose of SEZs. If the goods are ultimately meant for the DTA, they could be directly imported into the DTA instead of routing them through an SEZ by taking policy arbitrage. Accordingly, after taking into consideration the above submissions, and relying on the provisions of Rule 18(4)(d) of the SEZ Rules which govern the import of used goods for recycli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gularly applying for USFDA inspection and has paid the requisite registration fees for all years up to 31.12.2025. It was also informed that the Unit is in the process of preparing applications for obtaining necessary statutory licenses from various countries, with the approval process being pursued on a priority basis to enable commencement of production. The Unit has further committed to making the facility operational within the next 18 to 24 months and is taking steps to achieve this by applying for phased broad- banding approvals for new products in due course. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied with the recommendation of DC SEEPZ- SEZ that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, granted extension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year, i.e. upto 24.10.2026. 135.3(iii) Request of M/s. RMIH Technology India Private Limited, a Unit in Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu for extension of LOA upto 22.08.2026. DDC, MEPZ-SEZ informed the Board that the Letter of Approval (LoA) was issued to M/s RMIH Technology on 23.08.2022 has been extended twice and was valid up to 22.08.2025. It was infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmencement Certificate from JNPA. The Board was also informed that the Specified Officer, JNPA SEZ, conducted a site visit and observed that construction activities have not yet commenced. Further, the Developer, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA), has issued a No Objection Certificate and stated that soil testing has been completed. Construction permission has been approved by the competent authority and will be formally issued upon submission of a valid LOA. JNPA has conveyed no objection to the extension of the LOA. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, granted extension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year, i.e., upto 27.06.2026. Agenda Item No. 135.4: Request for extension of LoA (In-Principle approval) of SEZ [1 proposal - 135.4(i)] 135.4(i) Proposal of M/s. Dahej SEZ Limited, requesting for 4th extension of validity in respect of their 'In-Principle Approval' granted for setting up of a Multi Sector SEZ at Pakhajan, Tal. Vagra, Dist. Bharuch, Gujarat over an area of 650 Ha - reg. The DC informed the Board that the In-principle Appro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the de-notified land will conform to the land use guidelines/master plan of the Government. The Board was informed that there are no units in the SEZ. Further, the Developer has not availed any Tax/Duty benefits under the SEZ Act/Rules, in r/o of the land being de-notified. The Board, being satisfied in pursuance to first proviso to Rule 8 of SEZ Rules approved the full de-notification of the entire area of 2.56 Haof M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 24, 25 &26, Survey No. 115/1, 115/24, 115/25, 115/26 and 155/30, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 135.5(ii) Proposal of M/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Developer for partial de-notification of 1.214 Ha out of 56.841 Ha of Multi Sector SEZ at SIPCOT Industrial Park, Perundurai, Erode District, Tamil Nadu. The Board was informed that the reason for instant partial de-notification proposal is to convert 1.214 Hectares from SEZ into DTA in Plot No. S-1 Pt.1 (surrendered by M/s. Wipro Infrastructure Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) for allotment to potential buyers. Site inspection has been carried out by DDC,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a Co-Developer for undertaking the Building Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Services at SEZ developed by M/s. DLF Limited SEZ at Plot No. II-F/1, Block-II-F, Action Area-II, New Kolkata Township, Rajarhat, Kolkata, West Bengal. Now, it has requested for cancellation of Co-Developer status as the Developer is in process of re-structuring the management of its SEZ and henceforth developer itself will take care of the Building Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Services. The Co-Developer has submitted following documents :- i. "No Objection Certificate" issued by M/s DLF Limited, the Developer for cancellation of Co-Developer status. ii. "No Due Certificate" issued by the Specified Officer. Accordingly, the Board, after deliberations, approved the proposal for cancellation of Co-Developer status issued vide order no. F.2/43/2006-SEZ dated 05.12.2016. of M/s. DLF Power & Services Ltd in the SEZ developed by M/s. DLF Limited. Agenda Item No. 135.8: Miscellaneous [1 proposal: 135.8(i)] 135.8(i) Proposal for consideration of renewal of Letter of Approval (LOA) of M/s. Afcan Impex Pvt. Ltd., a worn/used clothing Unit in KASEZ- Reg. DC, KASEZ briefed the propo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfringements of the applicant are duly taken into account in light of Rule 19(6B) of SEZ Rules, 2006. iii. DC has not certified that the new "beneficial owners" adhere to the guidelines as per Rule 18 (4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 In view of the above, the Board after deliberations on several points of proposal including the order of NCLT and minutes of 104th meeting of the Boardheld on 28.05.2021, deferred the proposal as the proposal needs detailed examination of all aspects, hence, directed DC to submit a detailed factual report with the ground position along with his recommendations. Supplementary Agenda for the 135th meeting of the BoA for SEZ Agenda Item No. 135.9: Request for partial/full de-notification of SEZ [1 proposal 134.9(i)] 135.9(i) Proposal of M/s. DLF Limited, Developer for partial de- notification of 7.1826 Ha out of 10.4813 Ha of IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. II-F/1, Block-II-F, Action Area II, New Kolkata Township Rajarhat, Kolkata, West Bengal. DC, FSEZ informed the Board that IT/ITES SEZ developed by M/s. DLF Limited at Plot No. II-F/1, Block-II-F, Action Area II, New Kolkata Township Rajarhat, Kolkata, West Bengal was issued LOA vide letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 as a Co- Developer for providing infrastructure facilities in an area of 4.76 Ha in the SEZ developed by M/s Shyamaraju and Company (India) Private Limited at Kundalahalli Village, Krishnarajapuram, Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Dist., Karnataka. The Co-Developer has constructed a building (C01) admeasuring an area of 97494.90 sq.mtr. in the allotted space. Due to lack of demand for SEZ space, the same built-up area was demarcated as non-processing area as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rules 2006, by the Developer with the consent of Co-Developer, which was approved by the BoA in its 120th meeting held on 18th June 2024. While submitting the proposal for demarcation of built-up space as Non Processing Area, the Developer has refunded an amount Rs.20,58,27,061/- (Rupees Twenty crore fifty eight lakh twenty seven thousand sixty) towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the building including common facilities (Built-up area: Rs.20,46,82,461/- & common facilities: Rs.11,44,600/-) Now, it has requested for cancellation of Co-Developer status as despite efforts to have the building designated as NPA and offer it to the IT/ITeS sector, prevailing economic uncertainity and recessio....