Special Additional Excise Duty and Additional Duty of Excise cannot be levied on goods manufactured in Special Economic Zones

CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) under Section 147 of Finance Act 2002 and Additional Duty of Excise (AED) under Section 112 of Finance Act 2018 cannot be levied on goods manufactured in Special Economic Zones. The Tribunal ruled that since these duties are additional to excise duties under Central Excise Act 1944, and Section 3 of the Central Excise Act excludes SEZ goods from excise levy, SAED and AED are similarly excluded. The subordinate legislation (notifications) cannot override primary legislation. The SEZ Act 2005 also provides overriding effect exempting all duties on SEZ manufactured goods. Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was held entitled to refund with interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) and Additional Duty of Excise (AED) on goods manufactured in SEZ.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 147 of the Finance Act 2002 and Section 112 of the Finance Act 2018.
3. Validity of exemption notifications and their retrospective application.
4. Overriding effect of SEZ Act over other laws.
5. Jurisdiction and applicability of Central Excise Act provisions to SEZ units.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of SAED and AED on Goods Manufactured in SEZ:
The core issue was whether goods manufactured and exported by the Respondent in the SEZ were subject to SAED and AED. The Respondent argued that since goods manufactured in SEZ are excluded from the charge of Excise Duty under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944, they should also be excluded from SAED and AED, which are additional duties of excise. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the exclusion from basic excise duty under Section 3(1) extends to SAED and AED as these are increments to the existing duty.

2. Interpretation and Application of Section 147 of the Finance Act 2002 and Section 112 of the Finance Act 2018:
The Tribunal analyzed Sections 147 and 112, noting that these sections levy additional duties of excise. However, these levies are in addition to the duties chargeable under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Central Excise Act, including exclusions, apply to these additional duties. Therefore, since SEZ units are excluded from excise duty under Section 3(1), they are also excluded from SAED and AED.

3. Validity of Exemption Notifications and Their Retrospective Application:
The Tribunal reviewed the exemption notifications issued on 30-06-2022 and 19-07-2022, which partially exempted and then fully exempted SEZ units from SAED and AED. The Tribunal held that these notifications did not create a charge where none existed. It was emphasized that exemption notifications cannot create a charge of duty if the primary legislation does not provide for such a charge. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the goods manufactured in SEZ were not liable for SAED and AED even before the issuance of the exemption notifications.

4. Overriding Effect of SEZ Act Over Other Laws:
The Tribunal highlighted Section 51 of the SEZ Act, which states that the provisions of the SEZ Act have an overriding effect over other laws. It was noted that the SEZ Act deems SEZs as territories outside the customs territory of India and treats goods brought from SEZ to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as imports. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that goods manufactured in SEZ cannot be treated as manufactured in India for excise duty purposes, reinforcing the non-applicability of SAED and AED.

5. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Central Excise Act Provisions to SEZ Units:
The Tribunal addressed the argument that the Central Excise Act provisions should apply to SEZ units for the levy of SAED and AED. It was clarified that the Central Excise Act explicitly excludes SEZ units from excise duty under Section 3(1). The Tribunal reiterated that the provisions of the Central Excise Act, including exclusions, apply to the levy and collection of SAED and AED, thus supporting the non-applicability of these duties to SEZ units.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's contentions, ruling that goods manufactured in SEZ are not liable for SAED and AED. The Tribunal emphasized the exclusion of SEZ units from excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act and the overriding effect of the SEZ Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the refund of duties paid by the Respondent.

---