Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.95 seconds)The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd on 30 July, 2014
"4. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the impugned order is not
sustainable in law as the same is opposed to
the provisions of law as well as the
judgments rendered by the higher judicial
fora. He further submitted that the benefits
available to SEZ equally apply to developer of
SEZ. Throughout the SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ
Rules, 2006, SEZ developer has been treated
at par with the SEZ and no disparity can exist
between them. He further submitted that the
Department of Revenue has issued
Notification No.50/2008 dated 31.12.2008 to
incorporate developer in the Rule 6(6)(i) of
CCR, 2004 and argued that the amendment
to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 is clarificatory in
nature and it is for the previous period also.
He further submitted that this issue is no
more res integra and has been settled by the
jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the
case of Commissioner of Central Excise
vs. Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd.:
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 4 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
1