Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd vs Vadodara-Ii on 26 December, 2025

              ​Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal​
                    ​West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad​

                           ​REGIONAL BENCH- COURT NO. 1​

                      ​Excise Appeal No. 12185 of 2019-DB​

(​ Arising​ ​out​ ​of​ ​OIO-VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-007-19-20​ ​dated​ ​26/06/2019​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​
 ​Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise -Vadodara-II)​

​Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd                                   ...... Appellant​
​ lot No. 24/2, GIDC Industrial Estate,​
P
​Phase-iv, Panoli, Tal: Ankleshwar​
 ​Bharuch, Gujarat​

                                           ​VERSUS​
​ ommissioner of CGST &​
C
​Central Excise-Vadodara-II                                        ......Respondent​

​ st Floor... Room No.101,​ 1 ​New Central Excise Building,​ ​Vadodara, Gujarat- 390023​ ​ PPEARANCE:​ A ​Shri Ashok B Naval, Chartered Accountant​​for the Appellant​ ​Shri R K Agarwal, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent​ ​ ORAM:​ C ​HON'BLE MR. SOMESH ARORA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)​ ​HON'BLE MR. SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)​ ​Final Order No.​​11445/2025​ ​DATE OF HEARING: 28.08.2025​ ​DATE OF DECISION:​​26.12.2025​ ​SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH​ ​M/s​ ​Sun​ ​Pharmaceuticals​ ​Industries​ ​Ltd,​ ​Bharuch​ ​(100%​ ​EOU)​ ​(Appellant)​ ​are​ ​manufacturing​ ​Bulk​ ​Drugs​ ​under​ ​Chapter​ ​29​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Excise​ ​Tariff​ ​Act,​ ​1985.​ ​They​ ​were​ ​working​ ​under​ ​100%​ ​EOU​ ​scheme​ ​till​ ​28.02.2014.​ ​While​ ​auditing​ ​of​ ​their​ ​records,​ ​Central​ ​Excise​ ​officers​ ​noticed​ ​that​ ​during​ ​the​ ​period​ ​from​ ​April​ ​2011​​to​​February​​2014,​​the​​appellant​​had​ ​cleared/sold​ ​multiple​ ​products​ ​in​​Domestic​​Tariff​​Area​​(DTA)​​at​​concessional​ ​rate​​of​​duty​​in​​terms​​of​​Notification​​No.​​23/2003-CE​​dated​​31.03.2003,​​some​ ​of​ ​which​ ​were​ ​never​ ​exported​​while​​in​​some​​cases,​​products​​cleared​​in​​DTA​ ​were more than 90% of the FOB value of export of the said product.​ ​2​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​1.1​ ​After​ ​examining​ ​their​ ​reply,​ ​department​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​improperly​​availed​​the​​benefit​​of​​above​​notification​​and​​therefore,​​they​​were​ ​issued​ ​a​ ​show​ ​cause​​notice​​on​​10.03.2017​​proposing​​recovery​​of​​short​​paid​ ​central​ ​excise​ ​duty​ ​of​ ​Rs.​ ​3,90,82,282/-​ ​on​ ​excess​ ​DTA​ ​clearances,​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​11A(4)​ ​along​ ​with​ ​applicable​ ​interest​ ​and​ ​penalty​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​11AC(1)(c)​​of​​the​​Central​​Excise​​Act,​​1944.​​In​​adjudication​​proceedings,​​the​ ​Commissioner,​ ​CGST​ ​and​ ​Central​ ​Excise,​ ​Vadodara-II​ ​vide​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​26.06.2019​ ​confirmed​ ​the​ ​above​ ​Central​ ​Excise​ ​duty​ ​demand​ ​along​ ​with​​interest​​and​​imposed​​a​​penalty​​equal​​to​​50%​​of​​the​​duty​​amount​​under​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​Section.​ ​Aggrieved​ ​with​ ​this​ ​order,​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​filed​ ​appeal​ ​before this Tribunal.​ ​2. In their appeal, appellants have taken the following grounds: -​ ​(i)​ ​The main allegations of the department are: -​ ​a)​ ​Some​​of​​the​​products​​sold​​in​​DTA​​were​​more​​than​​90%​​of​​the​​FOB​ ​value of export of that product.​ ​b)​ ​DTA clearance of dis-similar products at concessional duty rate.​ ​c)​ ​Some​​of​​the​​products​​were​​sold​​only​​in​​DTA​​on​​a​​concessional​​duty​ ​rate and were never exported.​ ​(ii)​ ​The​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​concessional​ ​rate​ ​of​​duty,​​in​​terms​​of​​Notification​ ​23/2003-CE​ ​dated​ ​31.03.2003​ ​is​ ​available​ ​even​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​similar​ ​goods.​ ​The​ ​goods​ ​exported​ ​by​ ​the​​appellant​​and​​the​​goods​​cleared​​in​ ​DTA​ ​are​ ​similar.​ ​Further,​ ​deemed​ ​exports​ ​are​ ​also​ ​to​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​physical​ ​export​ ​while​ ​calculating​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​entitlement.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​relevance​​if​​any​​product​​cleared​​in​​DTA​​is​​more​​than​​90%​​of​​FOB​​value​ ​of​ ​export​ ​of​ ​that​​specific​​product​​if​​overall​​DTA​​sale​​entitlement​​is​​not​ ​exceeded.​ ​The​ ​demand​ ​is​ ​hit​ ​by​ ​limitation​​and​​interest​​and​​penalty​​is​ ​not recoverable from them.​ ​(iii)​ ​In​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​above​ ​notification,​ ​read​ ​with​ ​para​ ​6.8​ ​(a)​ ​of​ ​Foreign​ ​Trade​ ​Policy,​ ​2009-14,​ ​EOU​ ​can​ ​clear​ ​goods​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​upto​ ​50%​ ​of​​FOB​ ​3​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​value​ ​of​ ​the​ ​goods​ ​exported​ ​or​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​be​ ​exported.​ ​Units​ ​which​ ​are​​manufacturing​​and​​exporting​​more​​than​​one​​product​​can​​clear​​any​ ​of​ ​these​ ​products​ ​into​ ​DTA,​ ​upto​ ​90%​ ​of​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​export​ ​of​ ​the​ ​specific​ ​products.​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​has​ ​to​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​by​ ​adding​ ​both​​physical​ ​as well as deemed export of the specific products.​ ​(iv)​ ​The​ ​goods​ ​cleared​ ​by​ ​them​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​sales​ ​and​ ​those​ ​exported​ ​are​ ​similar.​ ​Learned​ ​Commissioner​ ​has​ ​erred​ ​in​ ​distinguishing​ ​the​ ​goods​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​trade​​name​​of​​the​​products​​rather​​than​​their​​application​ ​which​​is​​only​​basis​​for​​deciding​​similar​​goods.​​In​​terms​​of​​LOP​​granted​ ​to​ ​them​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Development​ ​Commissioner,​ ​they​ ​are​ ​permitted​ ​to​ ​manufacture a) Bulk Drugs- API and b) Bulk Drugs Intermediates.​ ​(v)​ ​"Similar​ ​goods"​ ​have​ ​been​ ​defined​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Custom​ ​Valuation​ ​(import​ ​of​ ​goods)​ ​Rules,​ ​2007​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​definition​ ​has​ ​been​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Foreign​ ​Trade​ ​Policy.​ ​The​ ​department​ ​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​appreciate​ ​their​ ​submissions​ ​on​ ​this​ ​point​ ​and​ ​wrongly​ ​confirmed​​the​ ​duty​ ​without​ ​giving​ ​any​ ​reasons​ ​as​ ​to​ ​why​ ​Bulk​ ​Drugs​ ​and​ ​their​ ​Intermediates​​having​​similar​​therapeutic​​use,​​cannot​​be​​considered​​as​ ​similar products.​ ​(vi)​ ​As​ ​per​ ​Rule​​2(f)​​of​​the​​Customs​​Valuation​​(import​​of​​goods)​​Rules,​ ​2007, "Similar goods" are defined as under:-​ ​"(1) "Similar goods" means imported goods-​ ​(i)​​Which​​although​​not​​alike​​in​​all​​respects,​​have​​like​​characteristics​​and​ ​like​ ​component​ ​materials​ ​which​ ​enable​ ​them​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​the​ ​same​ ​functions​ ​and​ ​to​ ​be​​commercially​​interchangeable​​with​​the​​goods​​being​ ​valued​ ​having​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​quality,​ ​reputation​ ​and​ ​the​ ​existence​ ​of​ ​trade mark;​ ​(ii)​ ​produced​ ​in​ ​the​ ​country​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​goods​ ​being​ ​valued​ ​were​ ​produced; and​ ​produced​​by​​the​​same​​person​​who​​produced​​the​​goods​​being​​valued,​​or​ ​where​ ​no​ ​such​ ​goods​ ​are​ ​available,​ ​goods​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​a​ ​different​ ​person,​ ​4​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​but​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​include​ ​imported​ ​goods​ ​where​ ​engineering,​ ​development​ ​work,​ ​art​ ​work,​ ​design​ ​work,​ ​plan​ ​or​ ​sketch​ ​undertaken​ ​in​ ​India​ ​were​ ​completed​ ​directly​ ​or​ ​indirectly​ ​by​ ​the​ ​buyer​ ​on​ ​these​ ​imported​ ​goods​ ​free​ ​of​ ​charge​ ​or​ ​at​ ​a​ ​reduced​ ​cost​ ​for​ ​use​ ​in​ ​connection​ ​with​ ​the​ ​production and sale for export of these imported goods. "​ ​(vii)​ ​Vide​ ​circular​ ​No.​ ​85/95-Cus​ ​dated​ ​26.07.1995,​ ​CBEC​ ​had​ ​clarified​ ​and​ ​issued​ ​guidelines​ ​to​ ​check​ ​similarly​ ​of​ ​goods.​ ​However,​ ​this​ ​circular​​has​​since​​been​​rescinded​​by​​issue​​of​​circular​​No.​​07/2006-Cus​ ​dated 13.01.2006 which also elaborates on "Similar goods" as under:-​ ​"paragraph​ ​6.8​ ​(a)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FTP​ ​provides​ ​that​ ​EOU/EHTP/STP​ ​may​ ​sell​ ​goods​ ​upto​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​exports​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​on​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​concessional​ ​duty​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​fulfilment​ ​of​ ​positive​ ​NFE.​ ​It​ ​also​ ​provides​ ​that​ ​within​ ​the​ ​entitlement​ ​of​ ​DTA​ ​sale,​ ​the​ ​unit​ ​has​ ​to​ ​sell​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​its​ ​products​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​the​ ​goods,​ ​which​ ​are​ ​exported​ ​or​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​be​ ​exported.​ ​There​ ​has​ ​been​ ​doubt​ ​as​ ​to​ ​what​ ​constitutes​ ​'similar​ ​goods".​ ​Further,​ ​when​ ​the​​units​​are​​not​​required​​to​​take​​any​​permission​​for​​DTA​ ​sale​ ​under​ ​paragraph​ ​6.39.9,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​felt​ ​necessary​ ​to​ ​provide​​definition​​of​ ​"similar​ ​goods"​ ​to​ ​bring​ ​clarity​ ​and​ ​uniformity.​ ​Therefore,​ ​it​ ​has​ ​been​ ​decided​ ​that​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​'similar​ ​goods"​ ​would​ ​be​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​similar​ ​goods​ ​as​ ​provided​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Customs​ ​Valuation​ ​(Determination​ ​of​ ​Price​ ​of​ ​Imported​ ​Goods)​ ​Rules,​ ​1988.​ ​The​ ​term​ ​"similar​ ​goods"​​means​​"goods​​which​​is​​although​​not​​alike​​in​​all​​respects,​ ​have​​like​​characteristics​​and​​like​​component​​materials​​which​​enable​​them​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​the​ ​same​ ​functions​ ​and​ ​to​ ​be​ ​commercially​ ​interchangeable​ ​with​ ​the​ ​goods​ ​which​ ​have​ ​been​ ​exported​ ​or​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​be​ ​exported​ ​having​ ​regard​ ​to​​the​​quality,​​reputation​​and​​the​​existence​​of​​trade​​mark​ ​and​ ​produced​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​unit​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​person​ ​who​ ​produced​ ​the​ ​export​ ​goods".​ ​The​ ​Board's​ ​Circular​ ​No.​ ​85/95​ ​dated​ ​26-7-95​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​this regard stands rescinded."​ ​(viii)​ ​The​ ​department​ ​has​ ​neither​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​value​ ​of​ ​deemed​ ​exports​ ​nor​ ​the​ ​guidelines​ ​provided​ ​under​ ​Appendix-14-I-H,​ ​with​ ​reference​​to​​DTA​​sales​​entitlement​​within​​three​​years​​of​​the​​accrual​​of​ ​entitlement.​ ​If​ ​deemed​ ​export​ ​value​ ​is​ ​added​ ​in​ ​the​ ​total​ ​FOB​ ​value,​ ​they​ ​had​ ​not​ ​made​ ​any​ ​excess​ ​clearance​ ​in​ ​DTA.​ ​It​​has​​been​​held​​by​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Gujarat​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Shilpa​ ​Copper​ ​Wire​ ​Industries​ ​2011​ ​(269)​ ​E.L.T.​ ​17​ ​(Guj.)​ ​that​ ​deemed​ ​export​ ​are​ ​to​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​5​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​physical​​export​​while​​calculating​​DTA​​sales​​entitlements.​​Similar​​ruling​ ​was​ ​given​ ​by​ ​CESTAT​ ​Ahmedabad​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Shree​ ​Rohini​ ​Enterprises​​Vs.​​Commissioner​​of​​Central​​Excise,​​Surat-I​​at​​2017​​(346)​ ​E.L.T.​​461​​(Tri.​​-​​Ahmd.)​​which​​was​​also​​affirmed​​by​​Hon'ble​​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​as​ ​reported​ ​2017​ ​(346)​ ​ELT​​A137​​(SC).​​In​​following​​cases​​also,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​held​ ​that​ ​value​ ​of​ ​deemed​ ​exports​ ​are​ ​to​ ​be​ ​included​ ​for​ ​calculating DTA sales entitlement :-​ ​●​ ​CCE,​ ​Visakhapatnam​ ​Vs​ ​Sri​ ​Saritha​ ​Synthetics​ ​&​​Industries​​Pvt.​ ​Ltd. 2016 (335) E.LT. 688 (Tri. Bang)​ ​●​ ​Commr.​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX.​ ​&​ ​Cus.,​ ​Surat​ ​Versus​ ​Mudra​ ​Markein​​Pvt.​​Ltd.​ ​2015 (323) E.L.T. 154 (Tri. - Ahmd.)​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​​of​​C.​​EX.​​&​​Cus.,​​Surat​​Versus​​Amitex​​Silk​​Mills​​P.​ ​Ltd. 2007 (216) E.L.T. 589 (Tri. - Ahmd.)​ ​●​ ​Commr.​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​Excise​ ​Versus​ ​Shilpa​ ​Copper​ ​Wire​ ​Industries​ ​2011 (269) Ε.Ε.Τ. 17 (Guj.)​ ​●​ ​Amitex​ ​Silk​ ​Mills​ ​Pvt.​ ​Ltd.​ ​Versus​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​Excise, Surat-I 2006 (194) ELT 344 (Tri.- Del.)​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​Versus​ ​Metflow​ ​Cast​ ​Pvt.​ ​Ltd.​ ​2016​ ​(331)​ ​E.LT.​ ​355 (Guj.)​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​Versus​ ​Metflow​ ​Cast​ ​Pvt.​ ​Ltd.​ ​2016​ ​(331)​ ​E.LT.​ ​355 (Guj.)​ ​●​ ​Nandan​ ​Synthetics​ ​Pvt.​ ​Ltd.​ ​Versus​ ​Commissioner​ ​Of​ ​C.​ ​EX.​ ​&​ ​S.T., Daman 2015 (315) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. - Ahmd.)​ ​(ix)​ ​They​ ​are​ ​eligible​ ​for​ ​quarterly​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​entitlement.​ ​Learned​ ​Adjudicating​ ​authority​ ​has​ ​calculated​ ​DTA​ ​entitlement​ ​without​ ​considering carried forward entitlement of the last quarter.​ ​(x)​ ​The​ ​show​ ​cause​ ​notice​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​on​ ​10.03.2017​ ​alleging​ ​suppression​​of​​facts​​for​​demanding​​duty​​for​​the​​period​​from​​April​​2011​ ​6​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​to​ ​February​ ​2014​ ​which​ ​is​ ​beyond​ ​the​ ​normal​ ​period​ ​of​ ​two​ ​years​ ​alleging​ ​suppression​ ​of​ ​fact.​ ​Extended​ ​period​ ​of​ ​limitation​ ​is​ ​not​ ​invokable​​in​​their​​case​​as​​they​​have​​been​​regularly​​filing​​ER-2​​returns,​ ​quarterly​ ​and​ ​annual​ ​performance​ ​report​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​filing​ ​intimation​ ​letters​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Development​ ​Commissioner​ ​before​ ​each​ ​DTA​​clearance.​ ​He​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Gujart​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Commissioner​ ​Vs.​ ​Meghmani​ ​Dyes​ ​&​ ​Intermediates​ ​Ltd.2013​ ​(288)​ ​E.L.T.​​514​​(Guj.),​​wherein,​​it​​has​​been​​held​​that​​when​​information​​was​ ​provided​ ​in​ ​prescribed​ ​format,​ ​then​ ​department​ ​cannot​ ​ask​ ​for​ ​more​ ​information​ ​and​ ​allege​ ​suppression.​ ​They​ ​also​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​the​ ​following​ ​decisions:-​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​C​ ​EX,​ ​Pune-​ ​Vs.​ ​Emcure​ ​Pharmaceuticals​ ​Ltd​ ​2014 (307) ELT. 180 (Tri Mumbai)​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX.,​ ​Noida​ ​Versus​ ​Accurate​ ​Chemical​ ​Industries 20 14 (310) E.L.T. 441 (All.)​ ​●​ ​Accurate​ ​Chemicals​ ​Industries​ ​VS.​ ​Commr.​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX.,​ ​Noida,​ ​2014 (300) E.LT. 451 (Tri. Del.),​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​Excise,​ ​Jalandhar​ ​Versus​ ​Royal​ ​Enterprises 2016 (337) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.)​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​​Cus.,​​C.​​EX.​​&​​S.T.,​​Indore​​Versus​​ZYG​​Pharma​ ​Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (358) E.L.T. 101 (Μ.Ρ.)​ ​●​ ​Collector​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​Excise​ ​Versus​ ​Chemphar​ ​Drugs​ ​&​ ​Liniments​ ​1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)​ ​(xi)​​Penalty​​is​​not​​imposable​​on​​them​​in​​this​​case​​as​​they​​have​​not​ ​made​ ​any​ ​contravention​ ​of​ ​nature​ ​specified​ ​in​ ​Section​ ​11AC​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Central Excise Act, 1994. They rely on the following decisions:-​ ​●​ ​Hindustan Steel V/S State of Orissa reported 1978 ELT (J.159)​ ​●​ ​Akbar​​Badruddin​​Jivani​​V/S​​Collector​​of​​Customes,​​Bombay"​​AIR​ ​1990 (SC) 1579​ ​7​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​●​ ​Mnaglam​ ​cement​ ​ltd.​ ​V/S​ ​CCE,​ ​Jaipur​ ​-​ ​2004​ ​(163)​ ​ELT​ ​177​ ​(Tri-Del)​ ​●​ ​Whiteline​ ​Chemicals​ ​VS​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX,​ ​Surat-​ ​2008​ ​(229) E.LT. 95 (Tri. Ahmd.)​ ​●​ ​Rosavar​​Steels​​Ltd.​​VS​​Commissioner​​of​​C.​​EX.,​​Coimbatore​​2011​ ​(268) E.L.T. 280 (Tri. - Chennai)​ ​●​ ​Prem​ ​Fabricators​ ​Vs​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX.,​ ​Ahmedabad-II;​ ​2010 (250) E.LT. 260 (Tri. - Ahmd.)​ ​●​ ​Shree​ ​Gobinddeo​ ​Glass​ ​Works​ ​Ltd.​ ​Versus​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX., Kolkata-11 2008 (223) E.LT. 476 (Tri. - Kolkata)​ ​●​ ​Jeevan​ ​Diesels​ ​And​ ​Electricals​ ​Ltd.​ ​Versus​ ​Commr.​ ​of​ ​C.​ ​EX.​ ​Puducherry 2019 (365) E.L.T. 397 (Mad.)​ ​●​ ​VVF​ ​Limited​ ​Versus​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​excise,​ ​Belapur​ ​2011 (267) E.L.T. 134 (Tri. - Mumbai)​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​Excise,​ ​Kol.​ ​IV​ ​Versus​​Kusum​​Products​ ​Ltd. 2012 (283) E.L.T. 433 (Tri. - Kolkata)​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​​the​​above,​​they​​prayed​​to​​allow​​their​​appeal​​by​​setting​​aside​​the​ ​impugned order.​ ​3.​ ​During​​hearing,​​learned​​Counsel​​explained​​the​​entire​​scheme​​including​ ​DTA​ ​entitlement​ ​and​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​Notification​ ​23/2003​ ​to​ ​impress​ ​that​ ​they​ ​have​ ​not​ ​breached​ ​any​ ​of​​the​​conditions​​of​​Foreign​​Trade​​Policy​​or​​the​ ​related​ ​notifications​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​CBIC.​ ​A​ ​wrong​ ​case​ ​has​ ​been​ ​made​ ​against​ ​them​ ​for​ ​demanding​ ​differential​ ​duty​ ​which​ ​is​ ​not​ ​payable​ ​if​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​Deemed​ ​exports​ ​is​ ​added​ ​to​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​physical​ ​exports​ ​for​ ​determining​ ​DTA​​sales​​entitlement​​and​​their​​carried​​forward​​DTA​​sales​​entitlement​​is​​also​ ​allowed.​ ​The​ ​goods​ ​cleared​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​are​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​goods​ ​exported​ ​by​ ​them​ ​and​​therefore,​​if​​all​​these​​factors​​are​​considered,​​no​​differential​​duty​​demand​ ​remains​ ​against​ ​them.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​mentions​ ​that​ ​extended​ ​period​ ​is​ ​not​ ​8​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​invokable​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​ ​as​ ​they​ ​have​ ​been​ ​filing​ ​regular​ ​returns​ ​with​ ​the​ ​department.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​submitted​ ​following​ ​case​ ​laws​ ​to​ ​support​ ​his​​case​​and​ ​prayed to allow their appeal​ ​:-​ ​●​ ​Commissioner​​of​​Central​​Excise,​​Bangaluru​​Vs.​​Global​​Green​​Company​ ​Ltd - 2022 (381) ELT 639 (Kar.)​ ​●​ ​B.​​R.​​Steel​​Products​​Pvt​​Ltd​​Vs.​​Commissioner​​of​​C.​​Ex.,​​Navi​​Mumbai-​ ​2021 (378) ELT 356 (Tri.-Mumbai)​ ​●​ ​ABI​ ​Turnamatics​ ​Vs.​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​GST​ ​&​ ​C.​ ​Ex.,​ ​Chennai-​ ​2019​ ​(366) ELT 1048 (Tri.- Chennai)​ ​4.​ ​Learned​ ​AR​ ​on​ ​the​ ​other​ ​hand​ ​reiterated​ ​the​ ​findings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Commissioner​​and​​submitted​​that​​the​​Adjudicating​​Authority​​has​​clearly​​held​ ​that​ ​the​ ​goods​ ​sold/cleared​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​in​​DTA​​are​​not​​similar​​to​​what​ ​has​ ​been​ ​exported​ ​by​ ​them​ ​and​ ​thus,​ ​he​ ​has​ ​rightly​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​​has​​violated​​the​​conditions​​of​​FTP​​and​​the​​related​​Notifications.​​To​ ​cite​​few​​examples​​of​​similar​​goods,​​he​​draws​​our​​attention​​to​​page​​90​​of​​the​ ​appeal​ ​memorandum​ ​where​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​has​ ​claimed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​product​ ​"​Carisoprodol​​"​ ​and​ ​"​Tizanidine​ ​HCL​​"​ ​are​ ​shown​ ​as​ ​Muscle​ ​Relaxant.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​him,​ ​if​ ​both​ ​are​ ​compared,​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​commercially​ ​interchangeable​ ​and to support his say, he produces the following table:-​ ​What is Carisoprodol​ ​What is Tizanidine​ ​Carisoprodol​ ​is​ ​a​ ​muscle​ ​Tizanidine​ ​is​ ​a​ ​short-acting​ ​relaxer​ ​that​ ​blocks​ ​pain​ ​muscle​ ​relaxer.​ ​It​ ​works​ ​by​ ​sensations​​between​​the​​nerves​ ​blocking​ ​nerve​ ​impulses​ ​(pain​ ​and the brain.​ ​sensations)​​that​​are​​sent​​to​​your​ ​Carisoprodol​ ​is​ ​used​ ​together​ ​brain.​ ​with​ ​rest​ ​and​ ​physical​​therapy​ ​Tizanidine​ ​is​ ​used​ ​to​ ​treat​ ​to​ ​treat​ ​skeletal​ ​muscle​ ​spasticity​​by​​temporarily​​relaxing​ ​conditions​ ​such​ ​as​ ​pain​ ​or​ ​muscle tone.​ ​injury.​ ​9​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​Carisoprodol​ ​should​ ​only​ ​be​ ​Tizanidine​ ​may​ ​also​ ​be​ ​used​ ​for​ ​used​ ​for​ ​short​ ​periods​ ​(up​ ​to​ ​purposes​ ​not​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​this​ ​two​ ​or​ ​three​ ​weeks)​ ​because​ ​medication guide.​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​its​ ​effectiveness​ ​in​ ​long​ ​term​ ​use​ ​and​ ​most​ ​skeletal​ ​muscle​ ​injuries​ ​are​ ​generally​ ​of​ ​short​ ​duration.​ ​Carisoprodol​ ​is​ ​considered​ ​a​ ​controlled​ ​substance​ ​in​ ​the​ ​United​ ​States.​ ​Prescribed​ ​for​ ​Nocturnal​ ​Leg​ ​Cramps, Muscle Spasm.​ ​Carisoprodol​​may​​also​​be​​used​ ​for​ ​purposes​ ​not​ ​listed​ ​in​ ​this​ ​comparison guide.​ ​4.1​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​his​ ​say​ ​that​ ​a​ ​bunch​ ​of​ ​similar​ ​goods​ ​having​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​therapeutic​​value​​cannot​​be​​considered​​'​similar​​'​​to​​another​​bunch​​of​​similar​ ​goods​ ​having​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​therapeutic​ ​value.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​medicines​ ​which​ ​are​ ​antidepressants​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​said​ ​to​ ​be​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​medicines​ ​which​ ​are​ ​anticancer.​ ​He​​therefore,​​pleads​​that​​the​​appellant​​has​​not​​produced​​any​​data​​or​​details​ ​to establish how their products have been termed as "similar goods".​ ​4.2​ ​On​ ​other​ ​points​ ​raised​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Learned​ ​counsel,​ ​he​ ​states​ ​that​ ​the​ ​commissioner​ ​in​ ​his​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​justified​ ​invocation​ ​of​​extended​​period​ ​and​ ​non-inclusion​ ​of​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​deemed​ ​exports​ ​in​ ​the​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​physical​ ​exports.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​justifies​ ​Annexure​ ​A1​ ​giving​ ​details​ ​of​ ​goods​ ​cleared​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​only​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​were​ ​never​ ​exported​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​which is a clear violation of FTP and concessional notifications.​ ​5.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​rival​ ​submissions.​ ​We​ ​find​​that​​the​​main​​issues​​in​ ​this case are:​ ​10​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​a)​​Whether​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​deemed​ ​exports​ ​is​ ​liable​ ​to​ ​be​ ​added​ ​to​ ​physical​ ​exports for determining DTA sales entitlement?​ ​b)​​Whether​ ​goods​ ​can​​be​​sold/cleared​​in​​DTA​​by​​more​​than​​90%​​of​​the​​FOB​ ​value of export of a particular product?​ ​c)​ ​Whether​​goods​​sold​​by​​the​​appellant​​in​​DTA​​are​​similar​​to​​those​​exported​ ​by him or, are there any goods which were only cleared in DTA?​ ​d)​​Whether​​extended​​period​​is​​rightly​​invoked​​for​​in​​the​​case​​demanding​​duty​ ​for the larger period?​ ​5.1​ ​We​ ​find​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​has​ ​claimed​​and​​also​​supported​​by​​various​ ​case​​laws​​that​​FOB​​value​​of​​deemed​​exports​​should​​be​​included​​in​​FOB​​value​ ​of​​physical​​exports​​for​​determining​​the​​DTA​​sales​​entitlement.​​We​​have​​gone​ ​into​ ​various​ ​case​ ​laws​ ​and​ ​find​ ​that​ ​the​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​is​ ​correct.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​M/s​ ​Shree​ ​Rohini​ ​Enterprises​ ​Vs​ ​Commissioner​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​Excise,​ ​Surat-I,​ ​this​ ​tribunal​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​reported​ ​at​ ​2017(346)E.L.T.(461​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​ ​value​ ​of​ ​deemed​ ​export​ ​is​ ​also​ ​to​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​into​ ​account​ ​for​ ​determining​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​which​ ​will​ ​be​ ​permitted​ ​to​ ​be​ ​sold​ ​to​ ​domestic​​market.​​This​​order​​has​​also​​been​​affirmed​ ​by​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​as​ ​reported​ ​vide​ ​2017(346)ELT​ ​A-136(SC).​ ​Similar​ ​finding​ ​was​ ​given​ ​by​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Virlon​ ​Textile​ ​Mills​ ​Limited​​Vs​​Commissioner​​of​​Central​​Excise,​​Mumbai​​reported​​at​ ​2007(211)​ ​ELT​ ​357(SC)​ ​and​ ​again​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​Vs​ ​Arvind​ ​Cotspin​​reported​​at​​2022(382)​​ELT​​735(SC).​​In​​the​​later​​case,​​the​​issue​​was​ ​whether​ ​Development​ ​Commissioner​​could​​have​​reviewed​​its​​decision​​dated​ ​26.11.1999,​ ​of​ ​allowing​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​by​ ​calculating​ ​entitlement​ ​upon​ ​consideration​​of​​both​​physical​​Exports​​and​​deemed​​exports,​​after​​more​​than​ ​four​​years​​on​​05/05/2004,​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​Appendix​​42​​of​​the​​Hand​​Book​ ​of​ ​Procedure​ ​had​ ​been​ ​amended​ ​to​ ​include​ ​physical​ ​exports​ ​for​ ​DTA​ ​entitlement. Hon'ble Court in para 10 observed as under:-​ ​11​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​10."​​In​​view​​of​​the​​above​​position​​of​​law​​emanating​​from​​para​​9.9(b)​​of​​the​ ​EXIM​ ​Policy​ ​as​ ​stood​ ​at​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​time​ ​and​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Virlon​ ​Textile​ ​(Supra),​ ​the​ ​very​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Show​ ​Cause​ ​Notice​ ​in​ ​this​ ​matter​ ​to​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​seeking​ ​to​ ​question​ ​the​ ​permission​ ​granted​ ​after​ ​about​​ten​​years​​when​​it​​had​​already​​been​​operated​​and​​executed,​​cannot​​be​ ​countenanced.​ ​For​ ​this​ ​reason​ ​alone,​ ​this​ ​appeal​ ​was​ ​required​ ​to​ ​be​ ​dismissed."​ ​Therefore,​ ​this​ ​issue​ ​needs​ ​relook​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Adjudicating​ ​Authority​ ​and​ ​he​ ​may​ ​re-check​ ​with​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Development​ ​Commissioner​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​practice​ ​adopted​ ​by​ ​them​ ​as​ ​per​ ​EXIM​ ​Policy​ ​as​​stood​​at​​the​ ​relevant​ ​time,​ ​before​ ​determining​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​has​ ​exceeded​​DTA​ ​sales​​beyond​​their​​entitlement​​to​​demand​​differential​​duty​​under​​Notification​ ​No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003.​ ​5.2​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​that​ ​if​ ​DTA​ ​sales​ ​are​ ​within​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​limit​ ​of​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FOB​ ​value,​ ​then​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​bar​ ​in​ ​clearing​ ​any​ ​specific​​product​​by​​more​​than​​90%​​of​​the​​FOB​​value​​export​​of​​that​​product.​ ​During​ ​arguments,​ ​learned​ ​Counsel​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​authority​ ​for​ ​making​ ​this​ ​claim​ ​but​ ​he​ ​could​ ​not​ ​produce​ ​any​​such​​guidelines/​​Authority.​ ​The​ ​relevant​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​Foreign​ ​Trade​ ​Policy​ ​pertaining​ ​to​ ​DTA​ ​sales​ ​entitlement on FOB (para 6.08 (a) & (k)) are as under:-​ ​"6.8​ ​DTA​ ​Sale​ ​of​ ​Finished​ ​Products/Rejects/Waste/​ ​Scrap/Remnants and By-products​ ​(a)​ ​Units,​​other​​than​​gems​​and​​jewellery​​units,​​may​​sell​​goods​​upto​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​exports,​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​fulfilment​ ​of​ ​positive​ ​NFE,​​on​ ​payment​ ​of​ ​concessional​ ​duties.​ ​Within​ ​entitlement​ ​of​ ​DTA​ ​sale,​ ​unit​ ​may​ ​sell​ ​in​ ​DTA,​ ​its​ ​products​ ​similar​ ​to​ ​goods​ ​which​ ​are​ ​exported​ ​or​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​be​ ​exported​ ​from​ ​units.​ ​However,​ ​units​ ​which​ ​are​ ​manufacturing​ ​and​ ​exporting​ ​more​ ​than​ ​one​ ​product​ ​can​ ​sell​ ​any​ ​of​ ​these​ ​products​ ​into​ ​DTA,​ ​upto​ ​90%​ ​of​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​export​ ​of​ ​the​ ​specific​ ​products,​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​the​ ​condition​ ​that​ ​total​ ​DTA​​sale​​does​​not​ ​exceed​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​entitlement​ ​of​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​exports​​for​​the​ ​unit,​ ​as​ ​stipulated​ ​above.​ ​No​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​at​ ​concessional​ ​duty​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​permissible​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​motor​ ​cars,​ ​alcoholic​ ​liquors,​ ​books,​ ​tea​ ​12​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​(except​ ​instant​​tea),​​pepper​​&​​pepper​​products,​​marble​​and​​such​​other​ ​items as may be notified from time to time.​ ​(k)​ ​In​ ​case​ ​of​ ​new​ ​EOUs,​ ​advance​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​will​ ​be​ ​allowed​ ​not​ ​exceeding​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​its​ ​estimated​ ​exports​ ​for​ ​the​ ​first​ ​year,​ ​except​ ​pharmaceutical​ ​units​ ​where​ ​this​ ​will​ ​be​ ​based​ ​on​​its​​estimated​​exports​ ​for the first two years."​ ​We​​find​​that​​there​​is​​a​​limit​​on​​DTA​​sale​​of​​any​​specific​​product​​not​​more​ ​than​​90%​​of​​the​​FOB​​value​​of​​export​​of​​that​​particular​​product​​subject​​to​​not​ ​exceeding​ ​overall​ ​DTA​ ​sales​ ​entitlement​​of​​50%​​of​​FOB​​value​​of​​exports.​​In​ ​fact,​​wastes,​​and​​by​​products​​etc​​if​​intended​​to​​be​​cleared​​in​​DTA,​​are​​also​​to​ ​remain​ ​within​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​limit​ ​of​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FOB​ ​value​ ​of​ ​exports.​ ​We​ ​therefore,​ ​are​ ​not​ ​convinced​ ​with​ ​the​ ​arguments​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​and​ ​accordingly,​ ​remit​​this​​matter​​to​​the​​learned​​Adjudicating​​authority​​to​​see​​if​ ​this​ ​limit​​has​​been​​breached​​in​​respect​​of​​DTA​​sales​​of​​any​​specific​​product.​ ​In​​case,​​this​​condition​​has​​been​​breached​​in​​respect​​of​​any​​specific​​product,​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​liable​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​excise​ ​duty​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​provisions.​ ​5.3​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​the​​claim​​of​​the​​appellant​​that​​the​​department​​has​​wrongly​ ​alleged​ ​dis-similarity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​goods​ ​cleared​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​vis-à-vis​ ​those​ ​exported​ ​by​ ​them.​ ​With​ ​the​ ​help​ ​of​ ​a​ ​list​ ​of​ ​products,​ ​they​ ​have​ ​drawn​ ​attention​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Bench​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​the​ ​products​ ​cleared​ ​in​ ​DTA​ ​sales​ ​are​ ​similar​ ​to​​those​​exported​​by​​them.​​They​​have​​relied​​on​​the​​definition​​of​ ​"similar​​goods​​"​​as​​per​​the​​Customs​​Valuation​​(import​​of​​goods)​​Rules,​​2007,​ ​clarifications​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​CBIC​ ​and​ ​Judicial​ ​pronouncements​ ​by​ ​various​ ​Courts/Tribunals​ ​regarding​ ​extending​ ​the​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​DTA​ ​sale​ ​on​ ​similar​ ​products.​ ​However,​ ​what​ ​is​ ​'​similar​​'​ ​and​ ​what​ ​is​ ​'​not​ ​similar​​'​ ​has​ ​to​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​light​ ​of​ ​composition​ ​&​ ​use​ ​of​ ​each​ ​product​ ​with​ ​the​ ​help​ ​of​ ​guidelines​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​CBIC​ ​and​​Foreign​​Trade​​policy.​​Composition​​and​​use​​of​ ​Pharmaceutical​ ​drugs​ ​is​ ​a​ ​highly​ ​technical​ ​subject​ ​and​ ​therefore,​ ​it​ ​will​ ​be​ ​13​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​proper​ ​if​ ​the​ ​similarity​ ​or​ ​otherwise​ ​is​ ​adjudged​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Commissioner​ ​based​ ​on​ ​parameters​ ​of​ ​composition,​ ​use​ ​for​ ​specific​ ​ailments,​ ​trade​​or​​proprietary​​name​​etc.​​For​​this​​purpose​​Adjudicating​ ​authority​ ​can​ ​allow​ ​appellant​ ​to​ ​submit​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​established​ ​Pharmacopoeias​ ​like​ ​British​ ​Pharmacopoeia​ ​or​ ​Indian​ ​Pharmacopoeia​ ​or similarity based on product patent.​ ​5.4​ ​The​​appellant​​has​​assailed​​invocation​​of​​extended​​period,​​on​​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​they​ ​were​ ​regularly​ ​filing​ ​ER-2​ ​returns​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Department,​ ​quarterly​ ​and​ ​annual​ ​performance​ ​reports​ ​and​ ​also​ ​intimating​ ​DTA​ ​clearances​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Development​ ​Commissioner.​ ​We​ ​however,​ ​find​ ​from​ ​their​ ​ER-2​​returns​​that​​consolidated​​figures/details​ ​of​​goods​​cleared​​in​​DTA​​sale​​are​​mentioned​​whereas​​issues​​involved​​in​ ​the​​present​​case​​have​​arisen​​after​​deeper​​scrutiny​​of​​documents​​of​​the​ ​Appellant​​by​​the​​officers.​​The​​issues​​such​​as​​similarity​​of​​the​​products,​ ​DTA​ ​sales​ ​entitlement​ ​with​ ​reference​ ​to​ ​exports​ ​and​ ​carried​ ​forward​ ​balance​ ​of​ ​entitlement​ ​at​ ​the​ ​close​ ​of​ ​the​​previous​​quarter,​​cannot​​be​ ​known​​from​​the​​details​​provided​​by​​the​​appellant​​in​​their​​ER-2​​returns​ ​and/or​​in​​other​​intimations.​​These​​were​​known​​to​​the​​department​​only​ ​when​ ​appellant's​ ​records​​were​​audited​​by​​the​​officers​​which​​otherwise​ ​would​ ​have​ ​remained​ ​unnoticed.​ ​In​ ​para​ ​4.9​ ​of​ ​his​ ​order,​ ​Learned​ ​Commissioner​​has​​discussed​​this​​issue​​in​​detail​​and​​justified​​invocation​ ​of​ ​extended​ ​period​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case.​ ​Keeping​ ​in​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​we​ ​agree​ ​with​ ​the​​findings​​of​​the​​learned​​Adjudicating​​authority​ ​on​ ​this​ ​issue​ ​and​ ​hold​ ​that​​extended​​period​​of​​limitation​​has​​correctly​ ​been invoked.​ ​14​​|​​Page​ ​E/12185/2019​ ​6.​ ​With​ ​above​ ​observation,​ ​we​ ​remit​ ​the​ ​matter​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Adjudicating​ ​Authority​ ​for​ ​deciding​ ​various​ ​issues​ ​raised​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​afresh​ ​in​ ​the​ ​light​ ​of​ ​above​ ​observations​ ​and​ ​then,​ ​re-determine​ ​central​ ​excise​ ​duty​ ​liability on the appellant, if any. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.​ ​(Pronounced in the open court on​​26.12.2025​​)​ ​(SOMESH ARORA)​ ​MEMBER ( JUDICIAL )​ ​(SATENDRA VIKRAM SINGH)​ ​MEMBER ( TECHNICAL )​ ​Raksha​