ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. This Appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short, "the Act 1944" read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is at the instance of the revenue & is directed against the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad dated 14.08.2024 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and thereby affirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise holding that the goods cleared from the SEZ cannot be considered as goods manufactured within India for the purpose of tax and duties. 3. The issue that fell for the consideration of the Tribunal was whether the goods manufactured and exported by the respondent assessee, in the Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone (SEZ) between 1.7.2022 and 19.7.2022 are subject to the levy of the following duties: (a) Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) levied as surcharge under Section 147 of the Finance Act 2002. (b) Additional Duty of Excise (AED) levied as Road and Infrastructure Cess under Section 112 of the Finance Act 2018. 4. We have heard Mr. N. Venkataraman, the learned ASG appearing for the appellant Revenue & Mr. Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 5. The issue is squarely covered by three decisions of this Court: (i) Ujagar Prints & Ors. (II) v. UOI and Ors. reported in 1988 38 ELT 535 (SC); (ii) Ashok Service Centre and Ors. v. State of Orissa reported in 1983 (2) SCC 82 ; & (iii) UOI & Another v. Mohit Mineral Private Limited reported in 2018 (17) GSTL 561 (SC) 6. The Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent assessee herein held in its operative part of the Order as under: "16. The finding of the Adjudicating Authority in Para 56 of the impugned Order that the clearance of goods by the Appellant in the present case qualifies as "export'' both under the SEZ law as also the C. Ex. Act, hence, the notifications which levied the taxes in the event of export will squarely apply to the Appellant as well, irrespective of whether they are a DTA unit or SEZ unit, is wholly incomprehensible and contrary to the legal provisions. Act, hence, the notifications which levied the taxes in the event of export will squarely apply to the Appellant as well, irrespective of whether they are a DTA unit or SEZ unit, is wholly incomprehensible and contrary to the legal provisions. By virtue of Section 147(3) and Section 112(3) of the Finance Act, 20002 and Finance Act, 2018 respectively, the exclusion from levy to SEZ units under Section 3 of the C. Ex. Act applied to the levy of SAED and RIC as well. Merely because the Exemption Notification was issued subsequently, does not mean that, the duty was payable prior to the issuance of the said notification when the levy itself was not attracted. ORDER 17. In view of the above discussion and findings, I find that the Appellant is entitled for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of excess duties of excise viz. SAED and RIC paid by them under protest on MS, HSD and ATF exported during the period 01.07.2022 to 19.07.2022, in terms of Section 11B of C. Ex. Act, 1944 read with Section 147(3) of the Finance Act, 2002 and Section 112(3) of the Finance Act, 2018, as the same was not payable. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 26.10.2023 is hereby set aside and the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed with consequential relief as per the law, including interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 7. The aforesaid findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) came to be affirmed by the Tribunal holding as under: "In view of above, we are of the opinion that respondent was not liable for payment of SAED and AED being an SEZ unit. Hence the said duties so paid are refundable to the respondent along with interest, in accordance with law. As a result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed. CO also stands disposed of. ..." 8. The Tribunal committed no error in holding that the charge under the Principal Act, i.e., Section 3(1) of the Act, 1944 does not extend to goods manufactured in SEZ & consequently the Additional duties, i.e., SAED (Surcharge) & AED (Cess) also cannot extend to goods manufactured in SEZ. 9. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s) if any shall stand disposed of.