CUSTOMS, EXCI SE AND SERVI CE TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL REGI ONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench – Court No. – I Excise Appeal No. 27582 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 31 & 32/2013 (G) CE dt.15.05.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Guntur)

M/ s Asian Peroxides Ltd GNT Road, MM Mudi, BO Kotapolur (V), ......Appellant Nellore Dist., Sulurpet, AP – 524 123 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

Service Tax, Guntur ……Respondent PB No.331, CR Building, Kannavarithota, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522 004 AND Excise Appeal No. 27583 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 31 & 32/2013 (G) CE dt.15.05.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Guntur)

M/ s Asian Peroxides Ltd GNT Road, MM Mudi, BO Kotapolur (V), ......Appellant Nellore Dist., Sulurpet, AP – 524 123 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

Service Tax, Guntur ……Respondent PB No.331, CR Building, Kannavarithota, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522 004 Appearance Ms. Anushka Rastogi, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri B. Subhas Chandra Bose, AR for the Respondent.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FI NAL ORDER No. A/ 30157-30158/ 2026 Date of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2026 [Order per: A.K. JYOTI SHI ]

M/s Asian Peroxides Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) are in appeal against OIA dt.15.05.2013, whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the orders passed by the adjudicating authorities demanding duty and also imposing penalty (impugned order).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Hydrogen Peroxide and were also, inter alia, availing credit of Customs Duty, Counter Vailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Customs Duty paid on import of goods. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on Special Additional Duty (SAD) imposed under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act (CTA), 1975, which was adjusted against various licenses issued to them under DEPB schemes. The department felt that Notification No. 89/2005-Cus dt.04.10.2005 provided only for taking credit of duty paid as CVD equivalent to Central Excise Duty leviable under section 3(1) of CTA and not SAD adjusted against licenses. The department also relied on CBEC Circular No.20/2006-Cus dt.21.07.2006, which clarified that import made against DFEC under Notification No.51/2003-Cus dt.01.04.2003 applies also to the cases of import made against DEPB license and therefore, the exemption was limited to BCD and CVD only and hence Special CVD has to be paid in cash and no credit can be availed on the Special CVD by debiting DEPB scrips. Further, CBEC Circular No.59/2004 dt.21.10.2004 clarified that Additional Customs Duty paid through debit under DEPB shall be allowed only with respect to licenses issued under the new Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and that the appellant had not been able to establish that DEPB scrips were issued under old policy or new policy.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on various provisions under Import Export Policy 2002-07 (old policy) as well as Circular No.59/2004-Cus dt.21.10.2004 and various other circulars in support that they were entitled to take credit in respect of CVD and SAD paid by way of debiting the DEPB scrips. She has also contested that extended period of limitation is not invokable as they had disclosed everything about taking of credit in respect of SAD paid and that there was no requirement for them to mention whether the duties were paid in cash or otherwise. She has also relied on various judgments, inter alia, including judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-IV Vs RCC Sales (P) Ltd [2012 (281) ELT 682 (AP)]. She has also submitted that extended period cannot be invoked as the issue is that of interpretation. She has also relied on various judgments in this regard as under.

a) CCE Vs MTZ Polyfilms Ltd [2010 (256) ELT 539 (Guj)]