Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Skf India Ltd vs Bangalore-I on 9 January, 2026
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2
Central Excise Appeal No. 21638 of 2015
(Arising out of Denovo Order No. 007/HEB/COMMR/B/1/2015 dated 31.03.2015
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate,
Bengaluru.)
M/s. SKF India Ltd.
No.2, Bommasandra Indl. Area,
Hosur Road, Bommasandra,
Bangalore - 560 099. ....Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - I
C. R. Building, P. B No. 5400, Queens Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ....Respondent(s)
WITH
Central Excise Appeal No. 21639 of 2015
(Arising out of Denovo Order No. 007/HEB/COMMR/B/1/2015 dated 31.03.2015
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate,
Bengaluru.)
M/s. SKF India Ltd.
No.2, Bommasandra Indl. Area,
Hosur Road, Bommasandra,
Bangalore - 560 099. ....Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - I
C. R. Building, P. B No. 5400, Queens Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ....Respondent(s)
AND
Central Excise Appeal No. 21640 of 2015
(Arising out of Denovo Order No. 007/HEB/COMMR/B/1/2015 dated 31.03.2015
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - I Commissionerate,
Bengaluru.)
Page 1 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
Shri. Chandramowli Srinivasan
Director - Finance of M/s. SKF India Ltd.
No.2, Bommasandra Indl. Area, Hosur Road,
Bommasandra,
Bangalore - 560 099. ....Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Bangalore - I
C. R. Building, P. B No. 5400,
Queens Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ....Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Abhi Parakh, Mr. Ramakrishna and Ms. Evita, Chartered Accountants
(CAs) for the Appellant.
Mr. Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. P.A. Augustian, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical)
Final Order Nos. 20005-20007 /2026
Date of Hearing: 06.10.2025
Date of Decision: 09.01.2026
PER: P.A. AUGUSTIAN
This appeal is filed against the Denovo Order
No. 007/HEB/COMMR/B/1/2015 dated 31.03.2015 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate,
Bengaluru.
2. The issues in the present appeals are regarding demand of service
tax against ineligible CENVAT availed by the appellant pertaining to
trading activity and services which are not eligible input services and
the penalties imposed on the appellant and their Director, Finance.
Page 2 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
3. The facts in brief are M/s. SKF India Ltd., the Appellant is
manufacturing and clearing goods including 'Ball bearing' and also taken
the service tax registration. Appellant was availing CENVAT credit on
inputs, capital goods and input services under CENVAT Credit Rules,
2004. Since Appellant is engaged in trading of 'Ball Bearings',
investigation was commenced and during investigation, it appeared that
for the period from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 upto January 2011,
CENVAT credit availed on common input services used for
manufacturing as well as trading activities in their Input Service
Distributor (ISD) Pune Account was passed to their Pune manufacturing
unit and the balance CENVAT Credit of 33% was availed at their
Bangalore Unit on being passed on by their ISD, Pune. Since ISD can
distribute only the credit of service tax paid on services used in relation
to manufacture of dutiable goods and in providing taxable services,
considering that the Appellant is not maintaining separate accounts for
service tax credit for the manufactured and traded goods, proceedings
were initiated and show cause notice (SCN) dated 03.02.2012 was
issued. Adjudication Authority as per the impugned order held that
CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 3,19,66,726/- availed during the
period from January 2007 to March 2011 as detailed in Annexure-I of
the impugned order was irregular. Thus, confirmed the demand and
ordered for recovery of the same. Further it is held that CENVAT credit
of Rs. 4,53,09,024/- as detailed in Annexure-II & III of the impugned
order are availed on ineligible services during the period from January
2007 to March 2011. Thus, confirmed the demand and ordered
recoveries. The Adjudication Authority also imposed penalty on
Appellant under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994, penalties on
the Pune unit who is the Input Service Distributor (ISD) under Rule 15
of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and also on Director of Finance
Shri. Chandramowli Srinivasan. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal
was filed before this Tribunal, and the appeal was disposed by way of
remand to the original authority for re-adjudication vide Final Order
Nos. 20723-20724/2014 dated 07.05.2014. Thereafter on Denovo
Adjudication, the Respondent confirmed the entire demand of service
Page 3 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
tax along with interest and imposed penalties vide Denovo Order No.
007/HEB/COMMR/B/1/2015 dated 31.03.2015. Aggrieved by said order,
present appeals are filed.
4. When the appeals came up for hearing, as regards the demand
against disallowance of input credit on common services including the
trading activities prior to 01.04.2011, Learned Chartered Accountant
(CA) submits that trading was included as part of exempted service vide
Notification No. 3/2011-CE with effect from 01.04.2011 and issue was
considered in the matter of M/s Anglo French Drugs and Industry
Ltd. Vs. CCE, wherein as per Final Order No. 20739-20741/2024 dated
10.07.2024, it was held that amendment in Rule 2(e) was only
prospective and therefore demand up to 01.04.2011 was held
unsustainable. This view was upheld in catena of cases including the
following:-
i. Anglo French Drugs & Industries Ltd Vs. The
Commissioner of Central Excise vide Final Order No.
20739-20741/2024 dated 10.07.2024
ii. Anglo French Drugs & Industries Ltd Vs. The
Commissioner of Central Excise vide Final Order No.
20540/2023 dated 09.06.2023
iii. S. Gopal Kamath (Cochin) Vs. C.C, C.C.E. & S.T-Cochin
vide Final Order No. 20076-20077/2019 dated
14.01.2019
iv. Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad -
(2023) 8 Centax 41 (Tri.-All) (18-08-2022]
v. Marudhan Motors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
& S.T., Jaipur-II - 2017 (47) S.T.R. 261 (Tri.-Del) [29-
07-2016]
vi. Commr. of C. Ex., Bhopal Vs. My Car (Bhopal) Pvt.
Ltd., - 2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 273 (Tri.-Del) [31-01-2018]
vii. Tricity Auto Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-II
- 2016 (44) S.T.R. 601 (Tri.-Chan) [07-04-2016]
Page 4 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
viii. Infinium Motors Guj. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Service Tax, Ahmedabad - (2023) 11 Centax 245
(Tri.-Ahmd) [30-09-2022]
ix. Franke Faber India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Aurangabad - 2017 (52) S.T.R. 155 (Tri.-Bom) [20-
01-2017]
x. Adani Energy Ltd Vs. C.S.T., Ahmedabad vide Final
Order No. A/10520/2022 dated 15.03.2022
5. The Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) for the Appellant further
submits that in the case of Lally Automobiles Vs. CC-[2014 (35)
S.T.R. 26 (Del)], while computing the CENVAT Credit to be reversed
due to trading during the period prior to April 2011, the appellant
adopted the formula introduced vide Explanation 1(c) below Rule 6(3D)
of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, inserted vide Notification 3/2011-CE(NT)
dated 01.03.2011. In the said case, the Revenue had essentially
considered 10% of total trading turnover as exempt turnover and
thereafter applied the above formula. This computation was upheld by
the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, and the said case was later affirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Mumbai bench of CESTAT has
in case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Central Excise, Pune I [Final Order No. A/85162-85165/2020]
dated 31.01.2020], held that for computation of CENVAT Credit to be
reversed in case of trading turnover, the turnover of purchase of goods
for trading should be reduced and only thereafter the CENVAT Credit
demand should be computed. When the demand of CENVAT Credit is
recomputed on the basis the above principles same will be significantly
reduced.
6. As regards CENVAT credit disallowed on the ground that services
purchased on which credit has been claimed, do not have nexus with
the manufacturing of excisable goods, Learned Chartered Accountant
(CA) submits that nexus between input services purchased, and
excisable goods manufactured is not a pre-requisite for CENVAT Credit
eligibility. Input services not only covers services used directly or
Page 5 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
indirectly in or in relation to manufacture of final products but also
includes services used in relation to business of the Company. This
principle has been upheld by Hon'ble Courts in numerous occasions.
Appellant submits that each of the service purchased on which CENVAT
Credit has been disputed has been held as eligible input service by
Tribunals / Courts. The Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also draws
our attention to the following chart showing details of the services and
the judicial proceedings against each services and submits that each
and every input services availed by the Appellant as input credit are
eligible for availing CENVAT credit on output services and there is no
illegality committed by the Appellant as alleged in the impugned order
and the entire demand on the said account is also unsustainable.
CENVAT
Sl. Details of
Credit Judicial Precedence
No Services
Disallowed
Information
India Alloys Industries Ltd - (2023) 6
1 technology 87,60,823
Centex 42 (Tri-Del)
Software Service
Evonik Specialty Silica India Pvt. Ltd. -
2 Courier service 67,60,035 (2024) 18 Centex 223 (Tri-Ahmd); P&P
Overseas - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 585 (Tri-Del)
Sundaram Clayton Ltd - 2018 (43) S.T.R.
Custom House
3 85,19,803 741 (Tri-Chennai); Magal India Pvt. Ltd -
Agent service
(2023) 5 Centex 159 (Tri-Bom)
Cargo Handling Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd - (2024) 16
4 20,95,832
agent Services Centex 4 (Tri-Chan)
AEC Intermetalli Ltd - (2023) 9 Centex 198
General Insurance
5 23,10,057 (Tri-Del); Capgemini Technology Services
Services
India Ltd - (2023) 29 Centex 407 (Tri-Bom)
Rent a Cab
6 22,38,871 Expro Ltd - (2023) 7 Centex 92 (Tri-Bom)
Service
Storage and
Lifelong Meditech Ltd - 2016 (42) S.T.R.
7 warehousing 19,63,622
828 (Tri-Chan)
Services
Sundaram Clayton Ltd - 2018 (43) S.T.R.
Construction
8 17,85,847 741 (Tri-Chennai); Lupin Ltd - 2012 (23)
service
S.T.R. 261 (Tri-Mumbai)
Sundaram Clayton Ltd - 2018 (43) S.T.R.
9 Cleaning service 14,85,833 741 (Tri-Chennai); Indo Alusys Industries
Ltd - (2023) 6 Centex 42 (Tri-Del)
Clearing and Sundaram Clayton Ltd - 2015 (43) S.T.R.
10 forwarding agent 14,35,833 741 (Tri-Chennai); Indo Alusys Industries
Service Ltd - (2023) 6 Centex 42 (Tri-Del)
Page 6 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
Commercial
Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd - (2024) 18
11 Training and 13,50,833
Centex 8 (Tri-Chan)
Coaching Services
Security Agency Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd - 2011 (24)
12 9,50,633
Services S.T.R. 645 (Kar)
Goods Transport Evonik Specialty Silica India Pvt. Ltd -
13 5,50,828
Agency Service (2024) 18 Centex 223 (Tri-Ahmd)
Reliance Industries - (2024) 14 Center 33)
Event
(Tri-Bom); J.P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd
14 management 5,95,813
- 2018 (45) S.T.R. 188 (Tri-Mumbai); VITP
Service
Pvt. Ltd - (2023) 23 Centex 150 (Tri-Hyd)
Evonik Specialty Silica India Pvt. Ltd -
15 Banking service 5,12,622
(2024) 18 Centex 223 (Tri-Ahmd)
Sundaram Clayton Ltd - 2018 (43) S.T.R.
Travel agent 741 (Tri-Chennai); Oddity South (India)
16 2,78,022
Service Securities Pvt. Ltd - (2025) 22 Centex 118
(Tri-Bom)
Outdoor Catering Real Chemicals Pvt. Ltd - 2019 (43) S.T.R.
17 1,83,803
service 1263 (Kar)
Business
18 1,85,811 Covered Under Definition of Rule 2(l)
exhibition Service
Interior decorator Shvrat Fits Wiener Ltd - 2011 (43) S.T.R.
19 1,45,832
Services 425 (Tri-Bang)
Club and Indian Bank - (2025) 23 Centex 88 (Tri-
20 Association 80,824 Cal); Erton Ltd - (2023) 7 Centex 42 (Tri-
services Bom)
Share transfer
21 64,483 Covered Under Definition of Rule 2(l)
agent Service
Adoniss Garments Ltd - (2023) 4 Centex
22 Cleaning service 45,815
351 (Tri-Ahmd)
Rana TRW Steering Systems Ltd - 2015
(38) S.T.R. 13 (Mad.); Reliance General
Group insurance
23 18,341 Insurance Ltd - (2023) 4 Centex 257 (Tri-
policy
Bom); Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd
- (2024) 16 Centex 161 (Tri-Lib)
J.P. Morgan Services (I) Pvt. Ltd - 2015
24 Architect service 9,853 (43) S.T.R. 185 (Tri-Mumbai); Lupin Ltd -
2012 (28) S.T.R. 201 (Tri-Mumbai)
Omega Healthcare Management Services
25 Real estate agent 8,037
Pvt. Ltd - (2023) 2 Centex 49 (Tri-Bang)
Insurance Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd -
26 7,554
auxiliary service (2023) 29 Centex 407 (Tri-Bom)
Page 7 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
27 Other Services 5,067 -
Legal consultancy Sundaram Clayton Ltd - 2018 (43) S.T.R.
28 3,084
service 741 (Tri-Chennai)
Reliance Corporate Park Ltd - (2025) 4
Health insurance Centex 287 (Tri-Bom); Tata Teleservices
29 513
Service (Maharashtra) Ltd - (2024) 18 Centex 159
(Tri-Lib)
Secretarial
30 419 -
service
Omega Healthcare Management Services
31 Mandap service 413
Pvt. Ltd - (2023) 2 Centex 49 (Tri-Bang)
Total 4,59,00,035
7. As regards invoking the extended period of limitation, Learned
Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the demand up to January
2011 has been confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation. In
this regard, Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that Appellant
had obtained first stage dealer registration for its depots where from
trading was being undertaken. The Learned Chartered Accountant (CA)
also drew our attention to the registration certificate and the sample
invoice copies, Form RC under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002.
Thus, the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of
limitation based on the show cause notice issued on 03.12.2012 is
unsustainable.
8. The Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) further submits that it is
well settled that when complex interpretation of law is involved,
conflicting or divergent judgments are available, invocation of extended
period of limitation and levy of penalty are unjustifiable. In this regard
Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) draws our attention to the following
decisions:-
i. Asst. Commissioner of GST & C.Ex., Chennai Vs. Shriram
Value Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 (368) ELT 928 (Mad.)
Page 8 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
ii. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.T. C.Ex &
S.T., Medchal - 2020 (43) GSTL 395 (Tri. - Hyd.)
iii. U. N. Automobile (P) Ltd. Vs. C.E. & S.T, Udaipur vide Final
Order Nos. 50219-50220/2019 - Delhi CESTAT
iv. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise Pune - I vide Final Order No. A/87472-87473/2024
- Mumbai CESTAT
v. Pravesh Kumar Maurya Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
and CGST (2024) 19 Centax 375 (Tri. - All.)
vi. C.S.T, New Delhi Vs. Kamal Lalwani - 2017 (49) S.T.R. 552
(Tri. - Del.)
9. The Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) also relied on the
following decisions:-
i. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.,
Maharashtra - 2006 (200) ELT 370 (S.C.) - If the
department was having full knowledge of the activities of
the business, extended period of limitation cannot be
invoked.
ii. Commissioner of CCE, Indore Vs. Syncom Formulation
(I) Ltd. - 2004 (172) ELT 77 (Tri - Del.) - Extended
period of limitation is not invocable if the facts have come to
the knowledge of the Department. This was the view
expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Rubicon Steels
(supra) which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
10. The Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue
reiterated the finding in the impugned order and further submits that
during investigation, to a specific question as to whether the fact of
availing and distribution of service tax credit on trading activity by ISD
Pune was brought to the notice of the department, Shri Virijendra
Patwari, General Manager, stated that since ISD are not taking credit of
services which were exclusively meant for trading for distribution, the
department was not informed of the same. Further to a specific query
Page 9 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
whether their Bangalore factory had brought to the notice of the
department at any point of time before being pointed out by the
department that they were availing Cenvat credit of trading services
extended by their ISD, Pune and availing of credit on trading services
which were not at all used in or in relation to manufacture of final
products, he stated that the Bangalore factory has taken Cenvat credit
on the basis of ISD invoices received from Pune; since the ISD was not
taking credit of service tax which were exclusively meant for trading
activity, the department was not informed of the same. As regards the
Appeal filed by Shri. Chandramowli Srinivasan, Director, Finance of
M/s. SKF India Ltd, Learned AR reiterated the finding in the impugned
order and further submits that in his statement dated 26.07.2011, inter
alia stated that; he was taking policy decisions pertaining to taxation
matters; he concurs with the statement dated 12.07.2011 of
Shri. Vrijendra Patwari, General Manager (Taxation) shown to him and
it was the decision of the company to avail Cenvat Credit on service tax
paid on common input services which were used in both manufacturing
and trading activity. Thus, responsibility to maintain proper record of
availment and utilization of CENVAT credit is cast on them. Inspite of
the said statutory requirements they availed and utilized Cenvat Credit
attributable to services used for trading activities. The above fact is
noticed only when the Head Quarters Preventive Unit (HPU) took up
investigation on being informed of irregular Cenvat availment and
scrutinized the records of the Appellant. Except for the information from
Pune Commissionerate and detailed investigation by the HPU, the
appellant would have continued availing inadmissible Cenvat credit of
input services used for trading activities. Further, the Cenvat credit of
service tax availed on such services is irregular in as much as the said
categories of service are beyond the purview of definition of input
service as defined under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as the
same are not used either directly or indirectly in or in relation to
manufacture of the final goods which are used commonly for
manufacturing activity as well as trading activity and the credit of
services attributable to trading activities is inadmissible. Thus,
Page 10 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
adjudicating authority righty confirmed the demand and imposed
penalty.
11. Heard both sides and perused the records.
12. As regards the demand against CENVAT credit by considering the
trading activities as exempted goods prior to 01.04 2011, we find that
divergent views are taken by different Tribunals and Hon'ble High
Courts. However, it is considered that amendment would be considered
with retrospective effect but should exclude the cost of purchase of
goods and not on the total turnover. As regards invoking the demand
by confirming extended period of limitation, we find that the Appellant
have a strong case specifically since the disputes were pending
regarding the trading activity. Further as evident from the registration,
the premises were registered and returns were filed for the relevant
period. Considering the submissions, the demand confirmed by invoking
the extended period of limitation is unsustainable.
13. As regards the demand against ineligible CENVAT credit against
ineligible inputs used, we find that that issue is also covered under
various decisions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, all the inputs services as
claimed by the Appellant are eligible inputs for availing CENVAT credit.
We find that the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the matter of
M/s. Mercedes Benz India Vs. CCE, Pune-I vide Final Order No.
A/85162-85165/2020 dated 31.01.2020 held that:-
"10. In the present proceeding, the learned Sr. Advocate Shri V.
Sridharan, however, advanced his argument mainly on two
principal issues, that is, whether the appellants are eligible to
CENVAT Credit on common input services described under Rule
6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and in calculating the
proportionate CENVAT Credit attributable to sale of cars; secondly
in the formula prescribed under Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004, it is
only the margin of value addition of the traded cars be considered
or otherwise".
Page 11 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
14. After detailed discussion on the above issue, the Tribunal held
that:-
"19. A plain reading of Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 along
with Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, and
principles of law settled in this regard, it can easily be construed
that the value of taxable services cannot include the value of the
material/goods used in rendering the taxable services.
Simultaneously, it is an accepted principle that the cost of all
ancillary and incidental services for providing the taxable service
be part of the value of the taxable service. Applying the said
principles to the present case also, that is, in determining the
value of non-taxable service i.e. 'trading' of imported cars, it
cannot include the value of the imported cars while apportioning
the quantum of credit availed on common input services and
attributable to the sale of imported cars, but the total value of the
services/expenses incurred in trading of the imported cars ought
to be considered as part of "value" for the purpose of the formula
prescribed at sub-rule 3A(c) (iii) for the period 01.4.2008 to
31.3.2011".
"20. More or less similar principle has been incorporated in
understanding the value of traded goods under amended
provisions of sub-rule 3(iv) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
w.e.f. 01.04.2011".
................................
................................
"24. Thus, to apportion the quantum of CENVAT Credit availed on various common input services and attributable to sale of the imported Cars as per the formula prescribed at Rule 6(3A)(c) (iii) of CCR, 2004, for the period 01.4.2008 to 31.3.2011 the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority, who would determine the said amount by applying the principles discussed above and other factors for the normal period of limitation. We make it clear that no penalty is imposable in the present circumstances".Page 12 of 13
Central Excise Appeal Nos. E/21638, 21639, 21640/2015
15. Thus, considering the ratio of above, the demand confirmed by the Adjudication authority by invoking the extended period of limitation is unsustainable. Further as regards demand for the normal period, though there are various conflicting decisions it is settled that the amendment brought in April 2011 is only clarificatory in nature and trading activities have to be included in the turnover. However following the ratio of the above, the entire value of the goods cannot be included as consideration for ascertaining the service tax. Since the disputes are involved in the above issue, penalties imposed on Appellant and Co- Appellants are also liable to be set aside. Appellant is directed to produce the worksheet certified by Chartered Accountant confirming the consideration involved in trading of goods excluding the value of the goods as held in the matter of M/s. Mercedes Benz (supra) and thereafter Adjudication authority shall verify the records and finalize the demand, accordingly.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified and Appeal No. E/21638/2015, is partly allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, if any, as per law. The impugned order in Appeal nos. 21639, 21640/2015 to the extent of imposing penalties is set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
(Order pronounced in open court on 09.01.2026) (P.A.Augustian) Member (Judicial) (Pullela Nageswara Rao) Member (Technical) Page 13 of 13