Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Tangedco vs Salem on 9 April, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 40188 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.15/ 2014 - ST dated 17.11.2014 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem)
M/s. TANGEDCO ...Appellant
(Hydro Project)
Superintending Engineer (Civil),
955, EVN Road, Erode 638 009.
Versus
The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise ...Respondent
No.1, Foulks Compound, Anai Road, Salem 636 001.
APPEARANCE :
Shri V. Ravindran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ajay, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. O.M. Reena, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V. MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No.40429/2025 DATE OF HEARING: 08.01.2025 DATE OF DECISION:09.04.2025 Per AJAYAN T.V.
"TANGEDCO", the appellant herein, has challenged the impugned Order in Original No.15/2014-ST dated 17-11-2014 (OIO) whereby the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.1,70,31,437/- towards the differential service tax payable on the 'works contract service' received by them from foreign companies during the period 01-04-2008 to 31.03.2012 under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994(Act) invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 73(1) of Act along with interest at appropriate rates and imposed equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Act and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Act. 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the holder of Service Tax Registration, under the category "Erection, Commissioning and Installation". During verification of accounts M/s TANGEDCO, it was found that M/s Litostroj EI., Slovania and M/s Koncar Inzenjering, Croatia were rendering composite services and supply of machineries to the appellant. The Department being of the view that the work undertaken by the foreign service providers fall under the category of 'Works Contract', requested the appellant to furnish the relevant documents. On scrutiny of the documents furnished by the appellant, it was observed that the scope of work undertaken by these foreign service providers relates to commissioning of the Bulb Turbine Generating unit for Bhavani Kattalai Barrage and included design and supply of all equipments, receipt, storage, preservation, and conservation of equipments at site, erection and commissioning, supply of mandatory spares, training of appellant's personnel etc. As per the contract entered between M's TANGEDCO and the foreign companies, the service is to be provided on EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) contract basis.
3. The Department was of the view that in terms of clarification issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, vide Circular No. 128/10/2010 ST dated 24.08.2010 with respect to long-term works contract which were entered into prior to 01.06.2007 (i.e. the date on which works contract service came into effect) and were continued beyond the date, in as much as Works Contract describes the nature of activity more specifically and therefore, as per the provisions of Section 65A of the finance Act, 1994, it would 3 be the appropriate classification for the part of service provided after the date. Therefore, citing Rule 2A of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 (inserted vide Notification No 29/2007 ST dated 22.05.2007 effective from 01.06.2007), which stipulated that the value of works contract service shall be equivalent to the gross amount charged for the said works contract less the value of transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the said works contract, and citing the provisions of Rule 3(1) of Taxation of Services (Provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006, which stipulated that subject to Section 66A of the Act, the taxable services provided from outside India and received in India shall, in relation to taxable services specified in sub-clause (zzzza) of clause (105) of Section 65 (Works Contract) of the Act, be such services as are provided or to be provided in relation to an immovable property situated in India, the Department observed that Rule 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 provided that where any service specified in Clause (105) of Section 65 is provided or to be provided by a person who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from where the service is provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India and received by a person who has his place of business in India, such service shall be taxable service and the recipient shall be treated as the assessee and will be liable to pay the appropriate Service Tax.
4. Therefore, the Department was of the view that the Hydro Electric Bulb Turbine Power Project is an immovable property and even though design and model testing services are provided in a foreign 4 country, the same form part of the Works Contract and hence it appeared that the service recipient, i.e. the Appellant, is liable for payment of Service Tax on the gross amount, excluding the material value, and thus a show cause notice 02/2013-ST (Commr) dated 05-02-2013 came to be issued proposing invoking of privos to section 73(1) to demand service tax beyond the normal period of one year, demanding service tax of Rs.1,70,31,437/- along with appropriate interest thereon and proposals to impose penalties under Section 76,77(2) and 78.
5. The appellant replied to the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 31.05.2013 refuting the allegations therein. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty vide Order in Original No.15/2014-ST as aforementioned. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order in original.
6. The Ld. Counsel Shri. V. Ravindran appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) was formed on July 1, 1957 under section 54 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 in the State of Tamil Nadu as a vertically integrated utility responsible for power generation, transmission and distribution and as per the provisions under the section 131 of the Electricity Act, 2003 TNEB was restructured on 1.11.2010 into TNEB Limited; Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO); and Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO). It is his submission that Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had issued on 15.11.2006 a Letter of Intent (LOI) [as corrected on 27.12.2006] to a consortium of foreign 5 entities viz. Litoroj, E.I., Slovania and KONCAR Inzenjering, Croatia for 2 Nos. Hydro Electric Bulb Turbine Power Projects on Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract basis at Bhavani-Kattalai Barrage 2 at Vendipalayam Village, Erode District, and Cholasiramani village, Namakkal District, and that a Contract Agreement dated 27.12.2006 was entered into by the TNEB with the consortium partners integrating the LOI as also other documents (enumerated in the contract).
7. The Ld. Counsel drew attention to the scope of work in terms of the LOI and submitted that the impugned order has fairly found that LOI was given and advance amount was paid prior to 01.06.2007, which was the date of introduction of Works Contract Service, as a Taxable service under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Larsen and Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (SC) it is contended that the above cited EPC works contract dated prior to 01 June 2007, did not attract the service tax levy at all. The Ld counsel thereafter placed reliance on the Board's circular 98/1/2008-ST dated 04 January 2008 to contend that though the circular dated 04 January 2008 was in the context of disentitling the taxpayer to an option to pay composite works contract service tax u/r Rule 3(3) for contracts for which service tax was paid differently prior to 01 June 2007, it sustains the logic that the classification of works contract that began prior to 01 June 2007 cannot be changed after that date. It is his submission that in this case, advance for the works was paid prior to 01 June 2007 thus attracting the liability under erection, commissioning and 6 installation service and it is an admitted fact in the notice and impugned order that the appellant had paid service tax as for a service of erection, commissioning and installation. Therefore, the ld. counsel contends, the impugned proceedings could not have disturbed this classification by adopting the classification that was not in existence when the liability to pay tax began.
8. The Ld. Counsel further submits, without prejudice to the above submissions, that the appellant is 100% Government of Tamil Nadu owned public sector undertaking formed under Section 131 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as an Electricity Generation and Distribution Utility and its primary functions are generation and distribution of Electric power to various consumers located within the state of Tamil Nadu in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, the activities covered by the contract is related to commissioning of the Bulb Turbine Generating unit, for generation of electricity and distribution thereof. It is submitted that at all times prior to 1.7.2012, taxable services for transmission of electricity, or for distribution of electricity were not liable for the levy of service tax as evidenced by the Govt. of India Notifications No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and 32/2010 ST dated 22.06.2010 and 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. It is the submission of the learned counsel that since the above notifications granted complete exemption from payment of service tax on all activities for transmission and distribution of electricity there was no need for payment of Service Tax at all for the activity in question, even under the erection, commissioning and installation or under the Works Contract Service. For the said 7 proposition, the Ld. Counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final order Nos.40834 to 40836/2023 dated 22-09-2023 in M/s. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, reported in 2023 (10) TMI 61-CESTAT CHENNAI, wherein the Tribunal, for arriving at its decision had relied upon various decisions including Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat [Torrent Power Ltd. v. UoI 2019 (1) TMI 1092] and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan [Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. UoI 2021 (2) TMI 557] & Board's Circular No. 131/ 13/ 2010 - ST dated 07 December 2010; upon which decisions, the ld. Counsel also places reliance in support of the aforementioned contention.
9. The Ld. Counsel further submits on the issue of limitation that, Board's circular dated 24.08.2010 which is cited in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority itself conceded that confusions and disputes prevailed during the relevant period and therefore, the appellant, a Government undertaking cannot be blamed with malafides in self-assessment and classification particularly of an issue in respect of which it is officially acknowledged in the circular that confusion and disputes prevailed. It is submitted that therefore the major part of the show cause notice dated 05 February 2013 was time barred in seeking to invoke the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, i.e., the "suppression" clause, for disputes of the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2012, beyond the normal time limit.
8
10. Ms. O.M. Reena, the Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Respondent, while reiterating the findings in the impugned order in original further submitted that as per the work order (para 16 of OIO) and LOI (para 17) of OIO it is seen that the scope of the work involved not only erection, commissioning and installation but also includes transfer of materials under EPC contract basis relating to the commissioning of the bulb turbine generating unit for Bhavani kattalai barrage and includes design and supply of all equipments, receipt ,storage, preservation and conservation of equipments at site, erection and commissioning, supply of mandatory spares, training of assesseee's personnel etc. In other words, M/s Litostroj E.I Slovenia and M/s Koncar Inzenjering, croatia have rendered composite services and supply of machineries to the assesse/appellant and thus it is a Single Composite contract involving supply and service.
11. The Ld. A.R submits that the registration/payment and actual work has commenced only after 01.06.2007 after Works Contract was made a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994 and as can be seen from Para 21 of the OIO, the registration had taken place only on 8/12/2009, PO no 316 dated 8/10/2007 was released to the foreign consortium only in October 2007 and thus the actual provision of service started only after 1/6/2007. In view of which the contention that the payment under the service head Erection, Commissioning was made before WCS came into existence is untenable.
9
12. The Ld. AR also contends that the CIRCULAR 128/10/2010 ST DATED 24/08/2010 and 98/1/2008 ST dated 04/01/2008, are not contradictory, but rather support classification of the impugned service under WCS only as they deal with ongoing composite and long term contracts which continues even after 1/6/2007 and were classified under respective services (namely erection, commissioning, construction of commercial complex etc.,) before 1/6/2007 and state about the valuation to be adopted/non availability of composite scheme, in such cases respectively. That even otherwise, in the instant case, both actual work and registration had taken place after 1/6/2007 and hence the classification under WCS is apt.
13. The Ld. A.R. further submits that though the model testing and design and drawing might have been done in the foreign country but these services were only used in the context of the execution of the impugned contract and hence it is to be construed that the services were received and consumed by the appellant in India and hence liable to be paid under reverse charge basis. Further, transportation of goods made by the consortium in terms of LOI is only an incidental service and cannot be viewed in isolation from the main contract and GTA be paid on it. It is the submission of the Ld. A.R. that as per section 65A of Finance Act 1994, the sub- clause which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to the sub clause providing a more general description and composite services consisting of a combination of services which cannot be classified in the manner specified above, shall be classified as if they consisted of a single service which gives them their essential character. Since the contract is one of the composite 10 services contracts, consisting of more than one service i.e. erection and commissioning and installation, testing and analysis service, consulting engineer service etc., the appellant is liable to pay ST on the entire amount under the category of WCS as per Section 65 A of Finance Act 1994.
14. The Ld. A.R. contends that the liability to service tax in respect of the appellant under the service category of WCS came to light only after the departmental officers studied the relevant LOI and other relate documents and the terms and conditions under which the said contract was executed by the said foreign companies. This was not an outcome of the scrutiny of the details furnished in the ST3 returns as the details emanated out of the scrutiny of the LOI and other documents conducted by the preventive wing. Furthermore, in spite of clear instructions issued by the Board on the subject of classification of ongoing contracts, the appellant continued to classify the services under Erection, Commissioning or Installation services, instead of "works Contract service". Such mis-classification was clearly out of the suppression of facts of the nature of contract between the appellant and the said foreign consortium. Furthermore, mere details of invoices raised by the appellant them on their customers could not have revealed the facts relevant to the classification matter. When the suppression of the material facts has become apparent, it will in no way curtail the demand in view of the following decisions, wherein it is held that mere knowledge of the department would not curtail the period under proviso to Sec 11A of C Ex Act 1944 namely M/s Neminath Fabrics P ltd 2010 (256) ELT (369) HC Gujarat and M/s 11 Nazareth Metal vs C. C.Ex 2006 (205) ELT 998 (tri). The Ld. A.R. submits that in the instant case, the invocation of extended period has been correctly done and in consonance with the orders in ETA Travel agency (p) Ltd Vs CCE Chennai 2007 (007) STR 0454 (Tri- Banglore and Mermaid Marine products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE Cochin 1995 (20) ELT 329 (tri LB), wherein it was held that evasion of tax does not necessarily involve concealment, even contravention of law to make duty unrealizable is evasion of duty and hence extended period is applicable under proviso to section 11A(1).
15. We have heard both sides and carefully perused the records and the case laws submitted as relied upon.
16. The issues that arise for determination are:
A. Whether for the disputed period, the services received by the appellant can remain classified as Erection and Commissioning Service as was claimed during that period by the appellant or whether they are classifiable as Works Contract Service as determined by the Respondent. B. Whether the services are exempted in terms of the Notifications No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and 32/2010 ST dated 22.06.2010 and 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010 or not.
C. Whether the invoking of extended period of limitation is tenable or not.
D. Whether the Demand made on the appellant sustains or not.
17. The issues are addressed in seriatim.
12
A. Classification of the services received by the Appellant.
18. The classifications relevant for the purpose of this case, as they existed in the Finance Act, 1994, for the relevant period are as under:
Section 65(39a) "erection, commissioning or installation" means any service provided by a commissioning and installation agency, in relation to,--
(i) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise or
(ii) installation of--
(a) electrical and electronic devices, including wirings or fittings therefore; or
(b) plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids; or
(c) heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work; or
(d) thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing; or
(e) lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or travelators; or
(f) such other similar services;
19. Section 65(105)(zzd) stipulates "taxable service"
means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a commissioning and installation agency in relation to erection, commissioning or installation.13
20. Section 65(105)(zzzza) stipulates "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this sub-clause, "works contract" means a contract wherein,--
(i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and
(ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out,--
(a) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installationof electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or
(b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or
(c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or
(d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to
(b) and (c); or 14
(e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects;
21. Section 65A of the Finance Act, stipulates as under:
Section 65A. Classification of taxable services - (1) For the purposes of this chapter, classification of taxable services shall be determined according to the terms of the sub-clauses (105) of section 65;
(2) When for any reason, a taxable service is prima facie, classifiable under two or more sub-clauses of clause (105) of section 65, classification shall be effected as follows:-
(a) the sub-clause which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to sub-clauses providing a more general description;
(b) composite services consisting of a combination of different services which cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of a service which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable;
(c) when a service cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a) or clause (b), it shall be classified under the sub-
clause which occurs first among the sub-clauses which equally merits consideration;
22. At this juncture, we note that the adjudicating authority after reproducing the definition of works contract service as enunciated under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 (effective from 01.06.07) in para 19 of the impugned OIO, and thereafter reproducing the contentions of the appellant in para 20 of the OIO, has then gone on to hold in para 21 as under:
15
" 21. The undisputed facts in this case are that the LOI was given prior to 01.06.2007. It is also seen that the purchase order No.316 dated 08.10.2007 was released to the Consortium only in October 2007 and the work commenced only after 01.06.2007 i.e. only after the date of introduction of service tax on Works Contract Service and the work was completed in September 2011. Thus the only activity undertaken prior to 01.06.2007 was issue of LOI and payment of advance amount to the foreign companies. The actual provision of service under the composite contract was clearly undertaken only after 01.06.2007. From the records of the case, I find that the assessee has taken service tax registration only on 08.12.2009, albeit under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services'. The contention of the assessee in this case is that since they have paid advance amount prior to 01.06.2007 and the same is taxable, it should be treated as the date of commencement of services and accordingly, these services are liable to be classified as per the provisions existed on the date of payment of advance. The noticee also claims to have paid service tax but it is pertinent to note that they have taken registration only on 08.12.2009 and hence the possibility of their having remitted any service tax on the advance amount under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services' prior to 01.06.2007 does not arise. The noticee have also not produced any evidence of having paid any service tax amount on the advance amount, prior to 01.06.2007 under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service'. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the actual commencement of services was only after 01.06.2007 and the assessee started paying service tax only after 01.06.2007. Hence the classification of services is to be done as per the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994 on the date of commencement of service by the said foreign companies to find out the appropriate service category under which the activities are covered" 16
The adjudicating authority has also examined the nature of contract, the contents of the Board Circulars No. 98/1/2008-S.T., dated 4-1-2008 and Circular No. 128/10/2010-S.T., dated 24-8- 2010 and then arrived at a considered decision that the contract for execution of the work entered between the overseas service provider and the appellant is a composite works contract only consisting of more than one service and the contract as a whole is classifiable as works contract service only on applying the provisions of section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the entire amount of contract under the category of "works contract service" and the demand proposed in the show cause notice to this extent is sustainable. The detailed findings are not reproduced herein to avoid prolixity.
23. We find that, admittedly and indisputably, the facts are that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had issued on 15.11.2006 a Letter of Intent (LOI), as corrected on 27.12.2006, to a consortium of foreign entities viz. Litoroj, E.I., Slovania and KONCAR Inzenjering, Croatia for 2 Nos. Hydro Electric Bulb Turbine Power Projects on Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contract basis at Bhavani-Kattalai Barrage 2 at Vendipalayam Village, Erode District, and Cholasiramani village, Namakkal District, and that a Contract Agreement dated 27.12.2006 was entered into by the TNEB with the consortium partners integrating the LOI as also other documents (enumerated in the contract).
24. On a perusal of the documents annexed to the appeal, it is seen from the LOI ibid, that scope of work in terms of the LOI 17 comprised of detailed design and engineering of all equipments(Bulb turbine & Generator, EOT Crane etc.,) with associated auxiliaries & accessories including control & protection system(s), complete manufacture, fabrication including quality control/shop testing, providing engineering drawings, documents, data sheets, operation & maintenance manuals, packing, forwarding, shipment, and transportation including port-handling, pre-shipment inspection, customs clearance from manufacturer's works to the site, supply of bulb turbine generating units and EOT crane complete with associated auxiliaries, accessories including control & protection for the Turbine, Generator & EOT Crane, receipt, proper storage, preservation and conservation of equipment at site, erection (excluding all civil works), testing, start up, successful trial, reliability run, performance guarantee testing of the plant and handing over after satisfactory performance guarantee tests as indicated in the Tender Specification and Tender documents and pre-bid and post bid clarification and correspondence, supply of mandatory spares, supply of erection and maintenance tools and tackles etc., training of purchaser's personnel for operation and maintenance of power plant equipment at site and at the manufacturer's works (ex-India) and any other activity for safe and successful operation of the contracted equipments shall be deemed to be included in the Contractor's scope. LOI enumerated the entire list of supplies to be made under the headings of turbine and auxiliary equipment, generator & auxiliary equipment, EOT crane and other goods. The scope of supply & services indicated that erection related works at the two sites are on Turnkey basis for loading at stores, unloading 18 at service bay, assembly, erection, testing, commissioning, trial/reliability run, conducting PG tests and handing over including storage cum-erection insurance. It also indicated that the price for the entire scope of supply, storage, insurance, erection, testing and commissioning & handing over (excluding all civil works) on turnkey basis shall be a sum of Euro 60,953,991 + INR 941,048,929/- F.O.R.D site, inclusive of all levies, taxes and duties etc., equivalent to INR 4,255,117,220/- ( Four Billion Two Hundred Fifty Five Million One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only) at the base exchange rate (ER) of Rs.54.37/- per Euro being the SBI bill settling exchange rate (ER) prevailed on the date of techno-commercial bid opening (i.e.21.12.2005) and the said Contract price is FIRM for the entire scope of works during the entire contract period.
25. We are of the view that, as can be seen from the definition of erection, commissioning or installation service that comes under Section 65(39a), reproduced above, "erection, commissioning or installation" means any service provided by a commissioning and installation agency and thus covers only such services simpliciter. Whereas, a plain reading of the documents makes it clear that the contract entered into by the Appellant with the Consortium was an Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract executed by the Consortium responsible to hand over the same on completion on a turnkey basis to the appellant. Again, from the definition of works contract as provided in the explanation to Section 65(105) (zzzza) reproduced above, it is evident that the said activities of the Foreign Consortium gets covered under the Explanation (ii)(e) 19 and the narration in the documents indicate that the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods as is even otherwise also evidenced by clause (v) of the LOI which inter-alia states that "TNEB will issue a single contract covering the entire scope of the specification with break up details such as separate rates for supply and erection. The applicable rate of CST/TNGST will be reimbursed on the supply portion." Thus, in our view, such transfer of property in goods involved in the contract and their exigibility to tax as sale of goods itself, coupled with the fact that it was an EPC contract which on completion was to be handed over on a turnkey basis to the appellant, brought the activities of the consortium within the ambit of the definition of taxable service of works contract as provided in Section 65(105)(zzzza) without any doubt.
26. It is also pertinent that the Ld Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Larsen and Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (SC) and has contended in para 1.5 of the written submissions that "Therefore, in the light of the law as stated above, the above cited EPC works contract dated prior to 01 June 2007, did not attract the service tax levy at all". Thus, while the learned counsel on one hand concedes that the said contract was an EPC works contract, nevertheless the classification adopted by the appellant under "Erection, commissioning or installation" service is sought to be justified on the contention that LOI was issued prior to 01.06.2007 and advance amount was paid prior to 01.06.2007 at which point in time the definition of works contract service had 20 not been brought into effect. The contention therefore is that the definition that was applicable when the LOI was issued ought to be retained as that was the point in time the levy had arisen and the classification therefore cannot be altered subsequently. Support for the said contention is taken from the circular of the Department dated 04th January 2008 which was issued in the context of disentitling the taxpayer an option to pay composite works contract tax under rule 3(3) of Works Contracts (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 for which service tax was paid under a different classification prior to 01-06-2007, although having the characteristics of a works contract.
27. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that sub-section (105) of Section 65 of the Act was amended and Clause (zzzza) was introduced defining the taxable service of works contract vide clause (A) of Section 135 of the Finance Act, 2007(22 of 2007). The Central Government, vide Notification No. 23/2007 dated 22- 5-2007, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (A) and clause (B) of section 135 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007), appointed the 1st day of June, 2007, as the date on which the provisions of the said clauses of section 135 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007) shall come into force. Thus, the Honourable Supreme Court in CCE v. Larsen and Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (SC) held as under:
"24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which 21 defines "taxable service" as "any service provided". All the services referred to in the said sub-clauses are service contracts simpliciter without any other element in them, such as for example, a service contract which is a commissioning and installation, or erection, commissioning and installation contract. Further, under Section 67, as has been pointed out above, the value of a taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service rendered by him. This would unmistakably show that what is referred to in the charging provision is the taxation of service contracts simpliciter and not composite works contracts, such as are contained on the facts of the present cases. It will also be noticed that no attempt to remove the non- service elements from the composite works contracts has been made by any of the aforesaid Sections by deducting from the gross value of the works contract the value of property in goods transferred in the execution of a works contract."
28. Thus, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for the following reasons. Firstly, the categorical finding of the adjudicating authority that the work commenced only after 01-06-2007, i.e. after the date of introduction of service tax on works contract service has not been controverted. Secondly, the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has taken registration only on 08.12.2009 and that therefore the possibility of the appellant having remitted any service tax on the advance amount under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services" prior to 01-06-2007 does not arise; has not been rebutted. On the contrary, on a perusal of the details of service tax payment of Rs.3,50,86,364/- made over the years filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is seen that there has been no payment of service tax on any count made prior to 22 01/2/2010. Thirdly, the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant has not produced any evidence of having paid any service tax amount on the advance amount prior to 01-06-2007 under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services" has also not been refuted. In fact, the appeal records too do not contain any such evidence of the appellant having paid any service tax under the category of 'Erection Commissioning or Installation Services" on the advance amount prior to 01-06-2007. Hence, the fact situation is that even though the levy was not at all attracted, by virtue of the services of the consortium not being services simpliciter, yet even if they were though to have mistakenly attracted levy under "erection, commissioning or installation service" prior to 01-06-2007 and a consequent liability was envisaged as having arisen, yet the assumed liability was never discharged prior to 01-06-2007. By the time the liability was sought to be discharged, presumably post the appellant taking registration on 08-12-2009, the very classification of the service under which the service was mistakenly thought to have been covered and under which liability was thought to have accrued in the first place, stood jettisoned by virtue of a more appropriate definition of "works contract service" having been brought into the statute from 01-06-2007 itself, covering the nature of service provided by the consortium. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have then discharged the liability adopting the correct classification under works contract service that had become applicable. Therefore, the contention of the counsel that the appellant could continue with the redundant classification and discharge the liability as per the redundant 23 classification, even after the more appropriate classification of 'works contract service' as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzza) has come into existence in the statute, is untenable and is therefore rejected. Likewise, the contention that the impugned proceedings could not have disturbed the classification by adopting the classification that was not in existence when the liability to pay tax began, is also specious, as the services of the consortium not being services simpliciter, never attracted any liability in the first place prior to 01-06-2007. Assuming arguendo that an assessee has discharged its liability under a particular classification of service, even then, when a more appropriate classification that would apply to the assessee is brought into the statute, nothing precludes the Department from proposing reclassification after putting the assessee to notice as to the amended legal provisions, duly adhering to the principles of natural justice. The reliance placed on the CBEC Circular 98/1/2008-S.T., dated 4-1-2008 in this regard by the appellant is also thoroughly misplaced. The Circular is not validating the proposition that if classification ought to have been under a particular taxable service prior to 01.06.2007, then it cannot at all be reclassified under works contract service thereafter even after 01.06.2007, as sought to be canvassed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. The impugned circular merely reiterates the eligibility criterion specified in Rule 3(3) of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, as the condition precedent for entitlement to exercise an option for coming within the composition scheme.
24
29. We also note that as per Section 65A, reproduced supra, Section 65A(1) provides that classification of taxable services shall be determined according to the terms of the sub-clauses of clause (105) of section 65. Thus, sub clause (zzzza) of Section clause (105) of Section 65 specifying taxable services of works contract has been aptly applied by the adjudicating authority while classifying the services of the consortium rendered to the appellant. We also note that a simple reading of the principles of classification stated in Section 65A makes it clear that as per sub- sec.2(a) the sub-clause which provides most specific description is to be preferred to sub-clause providing a general description and as per the mandate of sub-sec.2(b), a composite service consisting of combination of different services which cannot be classified in the manner specified in clause (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of a service which gives them their essential character. Thus, what emanates from the LOI is that the activities of designing and drawing and model test, inland transportation etc., are bundled as ancillary services in their entrustment to the consortium to be rendered by the consortium to the appellant in the course of execution of the composite works contract by the consortium. Since the services of works contract provide the essential character to the entire gamut of services provided by the consortium to the appellant, the adjudicating authority has rightly found that the consortium is rendering works contract service to the appellant and the appellant is liable under Section 66A to pay service tax on the entire amount of contract under the category of "works contract service". Hence, we are of the view that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order 25 classifying the activities of the foreign companies while executing the EPC contract for the appellant under 'Works Contract Service', applying the provisions of Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, warrants no interference and is accordingly upheld. B. WHETHER THE SERVICES ARE EXEMPTED IN TERMS OF THE NOTIFICATIONS NO. 11/2010-ST DATED 27.02.2010 AND 32/2010 ST DATED 22.06.2010 AND 45/2010-ST DATED 20.07.2010 OR NOT.
30. At the outset, we note that this is a plea that has neither been raised before the adjudicating authority while replying to the show cause notice nor during the personal hearing. Further, we also note that the said plea has not been raised in the grounds of appeal and is being made for the first time during the appeal hearing by way of submissions by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Nevertheless, being a plea claiming the benefit of an exemption notification, which if tenable, goes to the root of the matter, we have allowed the same at this appellate stage and thus it arises for our consideration.
31. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel that prior to 1.7.2012, taxable services for transmission of electricity, or for distribution of electricity were not liable for the levy of service tax as evidenced by the Notifications No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 and 32/2010 ST dated 22.06.2010 and 45/2010-ST dated 20.07.2010. He submits that since the above notifications granted complete exemption from payment of service tax on all activities for transmission and distribution of electricity there was no need for payment of Service Tax at all for the activity in question, even 26 under the erection, commissioning and installation or under the Works Contract Service. For the said proposition, the Ld. Counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final order Nos.40834 to 40836/2023 dated 22-09- 2023 in M/s. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, reported in 2023 (10) TMI 61-CESTAT CHENNAI, as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat [Torrent Power Ltd. v. UoI 2019 (1) TMI 1092] and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan [Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. UoI 2021 (2) TMI 557] and Board's Circular No. 131/ 13/ 2010 - ST dated 07 December 2010.
32. The relevant circulars, the benefit of which is being now claimed by the appellant and which arise for consideration are reproduced below:
a) Exemption to services provided for transmission of electricity In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service provided to any person, by any other person for transmission of electricity, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act. (emphasis supplied) (emphasis supplied) [Notification No. 11/2010-S.T., dated 27-2-2010]
b) Exemption to taxable service provided for distribution of electricity 27 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Finance Act'), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service provided to any person, by a distribution licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person by whatever name called, authorized to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), for distribution of electricity, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act.
2. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. (emphasis supplied) [Notification No. 32/2010-S.T., dated 22-6-2010]
c) Electricity -- Exemption to all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity till 26-2-2010 and distribution of electricity till 21-6-2010 Whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax (including non-levy thereof), under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Finance Act'), on all taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person (hereinafter called 'the service provider') to any other person (hereinafter called 'the service receiver'), and that all such services were liable to service tax under the said Finance Act, which were not being levied according to the said practice during the period up to 26th day of February, 2010 for all taxable services relating to transmission of electricity, and the period up to 21st day of June, 2010 for all taxable services relating to distribution of electricity; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the said Finance Act, the Central 28 Government hereby directs that the service tax payable on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity during the aforesaid period. (emphasis supplied) [Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010]
33. It is evident from a plain reading of the aforesaid notifications that the notification No. 11/2010-S.T., dated 27-2-2010 exempts the taxable services provided for transmission of electricity. Thus, the said notification is for service providers providing taxable service of transmitting of electricity that has already been generated/produced. To provide such services of transmission, it presupposes the existence of electricity that has been generated or produced and which is then being transmitted. It is such services provided for transmission of electricity that is being sought to be exempted by this notification. In the instant case the consortium of foreign service providers are rendering the works contract service of Engineering, Procurement and Commissioning Contract on a turnkey basis. It is only after successful completion of the said provision of service and the consequent handing over that the appellant can generate or produce electricity in the first place. Such services rendered to the appellant by the foreign services even prior to generation/production of electricity cannot come within the ambit of services that are exempted by the said notification.
29
34. Likewise, the notification No. 32/2010-S.T., dated 22-6-2010 exempts the taxable service provided by a distribution licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person by whatever name called, authorized to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), for distribution of electricity. Thus, the service provider who is covered by this exemption is one who is a distribution licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person authorized to distribute power. Again, it presupposes the existence of power that is being so sought to be distributed. In any case, the consortium of foreign service providers who have rendered the works contract service of Engineering, Procurement and Commissioning Contract on a turnkey basis are not a distribution licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person authorized to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) and in this context too it is to be remembered that no power that is so required to be distributed has even been generated, as it is only consequent to the successful commissioning of the project, that the question of any power being generated can occur.
35. The last notification that arises for consideration, namely, Notification No. 45/2010-S.T., dated 20-7-2010, is not extending any additional exemption, but merely is a notification issued by the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the said Finance Act, directing that the service tax payable on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the 30 said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity during the aforesaid period. In other words, the service providers who are already engaged in the services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity, which in turn presupposes the existence of already generated or produced electricity that is available for such transmission and distribution, and on whom as a practice service tax was not hitherto levied, shall not be called upon to pay the service tax liability that has arisen for the aforesaid period. Again, at the cost of repetition, it is stated that no power that is available for transmission or distribution by a service provider has even been generated, as it is only consequent to the successful commissioning of the project, by the foreign service providers and its handing over to the appellant, that the question of any power being generated by the appellant thereafter, can take place.
36. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to note the decision of the constitution bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus (Import) Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, reported in 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC), wherein, after noting a number of earlier Apex Court judgements, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:
" 40. After considering the various authorities, some of which are adverted to above, we are compelled to observe how true it is to say that there exists unsatisfactory state of law in relation to interpretation of exemption clauses. Various Benches which decided the question of interpretation of taxing statute on one hand and exemption notification 31 on the other, have broadly assumed (we are justified to say this) that the position is well-settled in the interpretation of a taxing statute : It is the law that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should enure to the benefit of the subject/assessee, but any ambiguity in the exemption clause of exemption notification must be conferred in favour of revenue - and such exemption should be allowed to be availed only to those subjects/assesses who demonstrate that a case for exemption squarely falls within the parameters enumerated in the notification and that the claimants satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing exemption. Presumably for this reason the Bench which decided Surendra Cotton Oil Mills case (supra) observed that there exists unsatisfactory state of law and the Bench which referred the matter initially, seriously doubted the conclusion in Sun Export Case (supra) that the ambiguity in an exemption notification should be interpreted in favour of the assessee.
41. After thoroughly examining the various precedents some of which were cited before us and after giving our anxious consideration, we would be more than justified to conclude and also compelled to hold that every taxing statute including, charging, computation and exemption clause (at the threshold stage) should be interpreted strictly. Further, in case of ambiguity in a charging provisions, the benefit must necessarily go in favour of subject/assessee, but the same is not true for an exemption notification wherein the benefit of ambiguity must be strictly interpreted in favour of the Revenue/State."
The Honourable Supreme Court has thereafter, in the concluding paragraphs of the said Judgement, held as below:
"51. In Hari Chand case (supra), as already discussed, the question was whether a person claiming exemption is required to comply with the procedure strictly to avail the benefit. The question posed and decided was indeed different. The said decision, which we have already discussed supra, however, indicates that while construing an exemption 32 notification, the Court has to distinguish the conditions which require strict compliance, the non-compliance of which would render the assessee ineligible to claim exemption and those which require substantial compliance to be entitled for exemption. We are pointing out this aspect to dispel any doubt about the legal position as explored in this decision. As already concluded in para 50 above, we may reiterate that we are only concerned in this case with a situation where there is ambiguity in an exemption notification or exemption clause, in which event the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be extended to the subject/assessee by applying the principle that an obscure and/or ambiguity or doubtful fiscal statute must receive a construction favouring the assessee. Both the situations are different and while considering an exemption notification, the distinction cannot be ignored.
52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under -
(1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification.
(2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue.
(3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled.
53. The instant civil appeal may now be placed before appropriate Bench for considering the case on merits after obtaining orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India."
33
37. We also note that in the appellant's case cited supra, the issue addressed was the appellant's entitlement to exemption for the services that the appellant rendered as a service provider in the appellant's role of a utility while engaging in transmission and distribution of electricity. The decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat [Torrent Power Ltd. v. UoI 2019 (1) TMI 1092] and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan [Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. UoI 2021 (2) TMI 557] were rendered in the context of a challenge to another CBEC Circular No.34/8/2018-GST dated 01- 03-2018 under the GST regime. The CBEC Circular sought to tax the services of DISCOMS (Distribution Companies) namely, application fee for releasing connection of electricity, rental charges against metering equipment, testing fee for meters/transformers, capacitors etc, labour charges from customers for shifting of meters or shifting of service lines and charge for duplicate bill. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat struck down para 4(1) of the said Circular as ultravires the rate notification under GST regime vide notification No.12/2017 dated 28-06-2017, whereby the services of distribution and supply of electricity fell in the negative list of services liable to nil rate of duty. The said decision was then followed in the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan [Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. UoI 2021 (2) TMI 557], where a similar challenge to the said Circular was made. the fact circumstances of the case laws cited by the appellant in the appellant's own case vide Final order Nos.40834 to 40836/2023 dated 22-09-2023 in M/s. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai, reported in 2023 (10) TMI 61- 34 CESTAT CHENNAI, as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat [Torrent Power Ltd. v. UoI 2019 (1) TMI 1092] and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan [Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. UoI 2021 (2) TMI 557], are entirely different from the fact circumstances of this case and are therefore not applicable in this instant appeal. The CBEC Circular No.131/13/2010 ST dated 07.12.2010 merely states in the context of supply of electricity meters for hire that the said activity is an essential activity having direct and close nexus with transmission and distribution of electricity, which is understandable as such electricity meters are used for measuring the electricity that is generated, transmitted and distributed and has no application in the instant case.
38. In view of our discussion above and in light of the Apex Court Judgement in Commissioner of Cus (Import) Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, reported in 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC), we are of the considered view that the notifications cannot be given a stretched interpretation to bring the works contract services of the consortium of foreign suppliers rendered to the appellant, within the ambit of the aforementioned notifications. We are therefore of the view that the benefit of the aforesaid notifications sought to be claimed are not available to the appellant. C. WHETHER THE INVOKING OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS TENABLE OR NOT
39. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant had contended on the issue of limitation that, Board's circular dated 24.08.2010 which is cited in the impugned order by the adjudicating authority itself conceded that confusions and disputes prevailed during the relevant period 35 and therefore, the appellant, a Government undertaking cannot be blamed with malafides in self-assessment and classification particularly of an issue in respect of which it is officially acknowledged in the circular that confusion and disputes prevailed. Ld. Authorised Representative has vehemently contested the same stating that evasion of tax does not necessarily involve concealment, even contravention of law to make duty unrealizable is evasion of duty and hence extended period is applicable under proviso to section 11A(1).
40. Although, from the documents it is evident that the appellant was aware of the concept of works contract and works contract tax and had considered the same in the light of the TNGST and CST regime while arranging the tax matters, dehors the fact whether such arrangement was accepted by the State tax authorities or not, nevertheless, the fact remains that there did prevail a lot of confusion regarding the coverage of services that had the characteristics of works contract upon which the assessee had discharged service tax under different classification of service in the case of ongoing works contract that commenced prior to 01- 06-2007. The CBEC Circular No. 128/10/2010-S.T., dated 24-8-
2010 concedes the factum of existence of such confusions/disputes. Clarity on this count emerged only after the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in CCE v. Larsen and Toubro reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (SC). When the assessee entertains a bonafide belief that it is not liable to tax due to issues of interpretational nature, we are of the view that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and hence the 36 demand made on the appellant is sustainable only for the normal period, if any.
D. WHETHER THE DEMAND MADE ON THE APPELLANT
SUSTAINS OR NOT.
41. In view of our discussions above, we are of the view that the demand made on the appellant vide the impugned Order in Original No.15/2014-ST dated 17-11-2014 (OIO) will sustain for the normal period.
42. On the aspect of penalty, we note that the Honourable High Court of Karnataka has in its decision in CST, Bangalore v. Motor World, 2012 (27) STR 225 (Kar) held as under:
33. In the light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated above, we answer the substantial questions of law as under :-
(1) The imposition of penalty under the Act is not automatic. The ingredients mentioned in the Section should exist. In respect of Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act, not only the ingredients of those Sections should exist, but also there should be absence of reasonable cause for the said failure.
(2) Sections 76 and 78 are mutually exclusive. If penalty is payable under Section 78, Section 76 is not attracted. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed for the same failure under both the provisions. (3) Even if the ingredients stipulated in Sections 76 and 78 of the Act are established, if the assessee shows reasonable cause for such failure, then the authority has no power to impose penalty in view of Section 80 of the Act.
(4) Even after holding that the ingredients stipulated in Sections 76 and 78 exist, and there is no reasonable cause shown for failure to comply with the said provisions, the authority has the discretion regarding the quantity of the penalty to be imposed. However, the penalty to be imposed cannot be less than the minimum or more than the maximum prescribed under the statute.
(5) The minimum penalty to be imposed is Rs. 100/- and not Rs. 100/- per day.
(6) If the penalty imposed is not less than the minimum prescribed under law, the revisional authority has no power to enhance the amount of penalty on the ground that it is less.
(7) When the assessing authority, in its discretion has held that no penalty is leviable, by virtue of Section 80 of the Act, the revisional 37 authority cannot invoke its jurisdiction and impose penalty for the first time.
43. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, including considering the fact that the appellant is a Government Undertaking, invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, we set aside the penalties imposed in the impugned Order in Original.
44. In view of our discussions above and on appreciation of the appeal records, we hereby modify the impugned Order in Original No.15/2014-ST dated 17-11-2014 (OIO) restricting the demand to the normal period along with applicable interest thereon and setting aside the penalties imposed.
The OIO stands modified on the above terms. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 09.04.2025) (AJAYAN T.V.) (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) psd