CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH EXCISE APPEAL NO: 89900 OF 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No: 50/CEX/COMMR/2014 dated 30^th July 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad.]

Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd Plot No. B-9/2 MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad - 431136 … Appellant versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs &

Service Tax N-5 Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad - 431030 …Respondent APPEARANCE:

Shri Ashok Nawal, Cost Accountant for the appellant Shri Hemant Kumar Tantia, Joint Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO: 85097/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 06/08/2025 DATE OF DECISION: 22/01/2026 PER: C J MATHEW M/s Shreya Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, the appellant herein, is aggrieved by the order, [order-in-original no. 50/CEX/COMMR/2014 dated 30th July 2014] of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad for fastening liability of duties of central excise amounting to ₹ 1,35,54,033 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with appropriate interest under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, in addition to penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, on certain clearances effected by them between April 2008 and March 2013. The appellant, a ‘export-oriented unit (EOU)’ manufacturing pharmaceutical products under ‘letter of permission (LoP)’ issued by the jurisdictional Development Commissioner, had been clearing their manufacture into the ‘domestic tariff area (DTA)’ on payment of appropriate duties of central excise in accordance with the proviso to section 3 (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 equivalent to the aggregate duties of customs chargeable on like products when imported into India in terms of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). In doing so, the appellant had availed the effective rate in notification no. 21/2002-Customs dated 1^st March 2002 (serial no. 80) towards charge of ‘basic customs duty (BCD)’ and in notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 1^st March 2002 on the ‘additional duties of customs’ chargeable under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in computation of the duty liability and had not discharged ‘special additional duty’ chargeable under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by resort to notification no. 23/2003-CE

dated 31^st March 2003 which was intended only subject to condition of discharge of ‘value added tax (VAT)’ liability for the recovery of which proceedings were initiated by show cause notice dated 15^th April 2013. 2. The impugned order held that ‘special additional duty (SAD)’ was liable on all such clearances owing to equivalence with aggregate duties of customs on imported goods which the impugned goods were subject to. It was further held that, as ‘export-oriented unit (EOU)’, entitlement to exemptions accorded by section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was available only to the extent that the notification was extended to such units; in the absence thereof, it was held that availment of such notification was without authority of law.

3. Learned Cost Accountant appearing for the appellant submitted that the charging of such duties was contrary to law in as much as ‘special additional duty (SAD)’ was applicable only to the goods that were exempt from the tax on sale of commodities imposed by the state government concerned and that several decisions, including that of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Lucky Star International v. Union of India [2001 (134) ELT 26 (Guj)], duly affirmed in dismissal of appeal of Revenue by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had set aside the circular prescribing payment of duties at the standard rate on clearances from Free Trade Zone (FTZ)/Export Processing Zone (EPZ) as contrary to law. It was contended that several decisions of the Tribunal, such as in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV v. Shanta Biotechnics Ltd [2010 (259) ELT