CUSTOMS, EXCI SE AND SERVI CE TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL REGI ONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench – Court No. – I Excise Appeal No. 30097 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-138-17-18 dt.30.10.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

M/ s Mylan Laboratories Ltd Unit-8, G. Chodavaram Village, Pusapatirega (M), ......Appellant Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh – 535 204 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - GST ……Respondent Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035 AND Excise Appeal No. 30116 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-139-17-18 dt.31.10.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam)

M/ s Mylan Laboratories Ltd Unit-8, G. Chodavaram Village, Pusapatirega (M), ......Appellant Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh – 535 204 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - GST ……Respondent Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh – 530 035 Appearance Shri Y. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri M. Anukathir Surya, 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/ 30117-30118/ 2026 Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 [Order per: A.K. JYOTI SHI ]

M/s Mylan Laboratories Ltd (hereinafter referred to as appellants) are in appeal against OIA dt.30.10.2017 in Appeal No. E/30097/2018. They are also in appeal against OIA dt.31.10.2017 in Appeal No. E/30116/2018.

2. The issue involved in both the appeals is that the appellants are 100% EOU and are engaged in manufacturing of bulk drugs. Further, as the appellants are mostly involved in exports, Cenvat credit taken on the inputs remained unutilized and therefore, in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Notification No.27/2012 dt.18.06.2012, the appellants claimed refund. This refund claim was filed on account of both physical exports, as also for the deemed exports, wherein the goods were cleared from the appellant’s unit to other 100% EOU. The Refund Sanctioning Authority (RSA) allowed refund only to the extent of Cenvat credit availed in relation to physical exports and in respect of Cenvat credit availed in relation to deemed exports was not refunded in cash and instead directed to remain posted in Cenvat credit account of the appellant. The adjudicating authority relied on the definition of ‘export’, as defined under Customs Act, which meant taking goods physically out of India to a place outside India and the fact that the term ‘export’ has not been otherwise defined under the CCR. He has also relied on the judgment in the case of M/s BAPL Industries Ltd Vs UOI [2007 (211) ELT 23 (Mad)].

3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order of the RSA. The Commissioner (Appeals) also distinguished the reliance placed by the appellant in the case of CCE Vs Shilpa Copper Wire Industries Ltd [2011 (269) ELT 17 (Guj)], CCE Vs NBM Industries [2013 (29) STR 208 (Guj)] and El Dupont India Pvt Ltd Vs UOI [2014 (305) ELT 282 (Guj)] on the facts that the issue in the said case was not relating to clearance from an EOU to another EOU.

4. Since the issue in both the appeals is one and the same, we propose to take up both the appeals together for hearing and disposal.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has mainly contested that refund under Rule 5 of CCR cannot be denied on deemed exports and that the issue of refund of credit on clearances from one EOU to another EOU is no longer res integra. Moreover, the explanation inserted to Rule 5 is prospective in nature. He has also submitted that the appellate authority should not have rejected the submissions made by them as regard the issue being no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Shilpa Copper Wire Industries Ltd (supra) as the Revenue’s appeal against the said judgment ha