Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi I vs M/S Shakti Zarda Factory (India) Pvt. ... on 17 January, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 23/12/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 17/01/2017. Excise Appeals No. 1840 of 2007 with C.O. No. 232 of 2007 and E/2192 of 2007 with C.O. No. 155 of 2008 and E/59089 of 2013 with C.O. No. 61731 of 2013 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 48-CE/DLH/2007 dated 16/04/2007, No. 98-99-CE/DLH/2007 dated 20/07/2007 and No. 101/CE/D-II/2013 dated 03/05/2013 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi II.] CCE, Delhi I Appellant Versus M/s Shakti Zarda Factory (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
S/Shri R.K. Tiwari and P.S. Gupta, Advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 50362-50364/2017 Dated : 17/01/2017 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
There are three appeals and Cross Objections involving similar issue of Central Excise duty liability of the respondent/assessee based on Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of chewing tobacco cleared by them. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in manufacture of chewing tobacco and packed the same in retail pouches of different weights like 6 gms., 7 gms., 10 gms. Different MRPs were printed for each retail pouches as per the weight of the tobacco contained therein. The dispute in the present case relates to those retail pouches containing tobacco weighing 6 gms. and 7 gms. each. The said pouches are then packed in a polythene pack. The polythene pack contained 52/ 42/40/32 pouches. The respondent/assessee claimed that the tobacco cleared in 6 gms./7 gms. pouches are not covered by the provisions of Notification 10/2003-CE (NT) dated 01/03/2003. The Revenue contended that the polythene pack containing these many numbers of tobacco pouches should be considered as multi piece package in terms of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977. The respondent/ assessee was issued with demand notices for confirmation of differential Central Excise duty, as they have not discharged duty in terms of Section 4A based on the MRP based assessment. The respondent/assessee contested the demands on the ground that the retail pouches of tobacco having less than 10 gms. of the goods are not covered by above-mentioned rules and further the pouches containing multiple numbers of such retail tobacco pouches are to be considered as wholesale package and not a multi piece package for retail sale. The Original Authority confirmed the differential duty holding that the respondent/ assessee is liable to pay duty in terms of Section 4A and not on transaction value in terms of Section 4 of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the respondent/assessees appeal. The Revenue is before us against this impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Another appeal by Revenue is against order dated 03/05/2013 of Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the eligibility of the respondent/assessee for consequential refund relief in view of his findings on non-applicability of Section 4A to the clearances made by the respondent/assessee.
2. Excise appeal numbers 59089 of 2013 and 1840 of 2007 alongwith Cross Objection No. 61731 of 2013 were disposed of by the Tribunal vide final order No. 50895-50896 dated 19/02/2016. However, the Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake in the said final order. It was prayed that the case laws relied upon by the Revenue were not mentioned and discussed in the final order. This amounts to error apparent on record and accordingly prayer was made for rectification of the said mistake. The application for ROM was allowed by the Tribunal vide miscellaneous order No. 51186 of 2016 dated 09/09/2016. Accordingly, these appeals alongwith another appeal No. 2192 of 2007 and Cross Objection No. 155 of 2008 dealing with the same issue is also taken up for combined disposal with the consent of both the parties in dispute.
3. The learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the chewing tobacco is sold by weight and not by numbers. This conclusion is based on wrong interpretation of law and analysis of the facts. There is no dispute regarding applicability of Section 4A of the Act for the valuation of chewing tobacco with reference to retail sale price. Rule 34 of SWM PCR 1977 exempts application of these rules to certain packages. Packages containing a commodity with net weight of less than 10 gms. is not covered by these rules. Chewing tobacco is neither sold by weight nor sold by measure. It is sold in numbers. The respondent is packing chewing tobacco in 6 gms. and 7 gms. pouches. Many such pouches were to be again in polythene package. This polythene package should be considered as multi piece package. In terms of Rule 2 (j) of the SWM PCR 1977 multi piece package means a package containing two or more individually packaged, labeled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity, intended for retail sale, either in individual pieces or the package as a whole. The learned AR submitted that in terms of this definition it is clear that the respondent is clearing tobacco pouches in multi piece package and not in wholesale package. Wholesale package is a package containing a number of retail packages intended for sale to an intermediary and not intended for sale to a single consumer.
4. The learned AR also relied on the statements given by persons who are dealing with the product to reiterate that the multi piece packages are meant for retail sale.
5. The Revenue relied on the following decisions :-
(i) Roys Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 387 (Tri. LB) ;
(ii) Arora Product vs. CCE, Jaipur II reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. Del.) ;
(iii) Radha Tobacco Co. vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in 2016 (339) E.L.T. 328 (Tri. All.).
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that many retail packages, each containing 6 gms. or 7 gms. chewing tobacco, were put together in a polythene packs. The number of such retail pouches packed together vary from 12 to 52. The polythene bags containing many such retail packs bear the name and address of the manufacturer, description of the commodity, declaration of number of retail pouches and price of each retail pouch as well as net quantity of tobacco contained in the package as required under Rule 29 of the SWM PCR 1977. These are nothing but wholesale packages and were not intended for retail sale. These package did not show MRP of the whole package. He reiterated that the inscription of these packages was, contain 52 retail pouches of MRP of rupee one each. This will factually show that this package as nothing but wholesale package and not intended for retail sale. The learned Counsel further submitted that the fact of their case is different from that of Arora Products (supra) and Roys Industries Ltd. (supra) decided by the Tribunal.
7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically observed that different types of merchandise are sold by different transactional methods. Some are measurable items by weight, volume, length etc. which are sold with such measurement. Some are sold by numbers only. Chewing tobacco was sold with reference to weight in a pouch. The learned Counsel submitted that the Revenue recorded certain statements of a few persons and their deposition was mis-construed and relied upon selectively. Denial of cross-examination of these witnesses is legally not justifiable. Their statements given behind the back of the respondent cannot be quoted without giving opportunity to cross-examine them to bring out the correct factual position. The learned Counsel relied on the clarification issued by the Department of Legal Metrology on this very same product. It is not correct on the part of the Revenue to say that each one of the manufacturer should get a clarification from the concerned office of legal metrology for a binding legal position. Their Association sought the clarification from the concerned authorities who clarified categorically that packages below 10 gms. are totally exempt from purview of SWM Rules and packages containing 10 or more retail packages are considered as wholesale packages and need not carry retail sale price declaration.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the following decided cases :-
(a) CCE, Rohtak vs. Gupta Tobacco Co. reported in 2010 (252) E.L.T. 271 (Tri. Del.) as affirmed by Honble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (301) E.L.T. A70 (S.C.);
(b) Loknath Prasad Gupta vs. CCE, Kolkata III reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 412 (Tri. Kolkata) as affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) ;
(c) CCE, Vapi vs. Kraftech Products reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 504 (S.C.) ;
(d) Central Arecanut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-op. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 369 (Tri. Chennai) as affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. A107 (S.C.) ;
(e) Milap Zarda Udyog reported in 2012 TIOL 1073 CESTAT DEL. ;
(f) Sampre Nutrition Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex. (Appeals), Hyderabad reported in 2013 (290) E.L.T. 291 (Tri. Bangalore).
(g) Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 565 (Tri. Mumbai)
9. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that, admittedly, chewing tobacco sold in pouches with MRP is covered by the provisions of Section 4A in terms of Notification 10/2003-CE (NT) dated 28/02/2003 which amended Notification 13/2002-CE (NT) dated 01/03/2002. However, the dispute is with reference to chewing tobacco contained in pouches of below 10 gms. net weight. The respondent/assessee cleared such pouches and discharged Central Excise duty on transaction value in terms of Section 4. The Revenue contended that the assessment should be based on MRP value. The crux of the issue is when these chewing tobacco pouches containing less than 10 gms. of net weight were put together (12 to 52 numbers) in the polythene bag whether to consider such polythene bag as a multi piece pack or a wholesale pack. First of all we should dispel any notion to the effect that when a product is notified under Section 4A it automatically attract MRP based assessment. We note that the various stipulations and statutory requirement as per the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 are to be examined. The legal provisions relevant to the present dispute as examined by the lower Authorities are reproduced below :-
The applicable provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, are :-
Retail package means a package containing any commodity which is produced, distributed, displayed, delivered or stored for sale through retail sales agencies or other instrumentality for consumption by an individual or a group of individuals.
[Rule 2 (p) of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged commodities) Rule 1977] Multi-piece package means a package containing two or more individual packaged or labeled pieces of the same commodities of identical quantity intended for retail sale either in individual pieces or the package as whole.
[Rule 2 (j) of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged commodities) Rule 1977] Rule 17 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged commodities) Rule 1977 lays down the additional declarations to be made on multi-piece package (1) Every multi-piece package shall bear therein, in addition to the declaration of
(a) the number of individual piece contained thereto :-
(b) the retail sale price of the multi-piece package;
Provided that where individual piece contained in a multi-piece package are packaged or labeled separately and are capable of being sold separately each piece shall bear thereon a declaration as to the quantity and the retail sale price thereof.
(2) When a multi-piece package contains a number of smaller multi-piece packages each of which is capable of being sold separately such multi-piece package shall also bear thereon a declaration as to the number of Smaller packages contained therein and the quantity contained in each such smaller package. Chapter V of the Standard of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rule 1977 relate to exemptions from the provisions of these rules. Rule 34 provided for exemption in respect of certain packages. The relevant provision contained in Rule 34 is to the following effect:
Exemption in respect of certain package.
(1) Nothing contained in these rules shall apply to any package containing a commodity if
(a)
(b) The net weight or measure of the commodity is ten grams or ten milliliters or less, if sold by weight or measure;
10. Notification 13/2002-CE (NT) dated 01/03/2002 as amended by Notification 10/2003-CE (NT) dated 01/03/2003 was issued in terms of Section 4A of the Act. The said notification specified, among other goods, Tariff Heading 2404.41 as goods covered by MRP based valuation. Section 4A (1) empowers Government to specify any goods in relation to which it is required, under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being enforced, to declare on the package thereof the retail sale price of such goods, to which the provisions of sub-Section (2) shall apply. It is apparent on reading the provisions of Section 4A and the notification issued thereunder that the assessment under Section 4A is linked to the provision of SWM Act, 1976. It is pertinent to note that the said Act and the Central Excise Act, 1944 were enacted for different purposes and the scope and intentions are also different. The link between the two Acts was brought in by Section 4A and it is clear that only upon fulfillment of requirements under SWM Act, the goods will be covered under Section 4A. In other words, the Central Excise Act by itself does not provide the scope of applicability of different packaged commodities and the method of packing etc. for MRP based assessment. Read together it is clear that there are two legal requirements for a commodity to be taxed under MRP based assessment the first one is requirements under SWM Act and rules made thereunder and the second one is notification under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Regarding the scope of SWM Act and its applicability for Section 4A assessment, we referred to the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Nagpur vs. Sony Polymers Pvt. Ltd. dated 15th April, 2016 in appeal No. E/546 of 2007. The Tribunal observed as under :-
13. We would like to observe that the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 have been enacted for protection of consumer rights. It was found convenient to dovetail assessment of excise duty with this existing statutory prescription; nevertheless, the dovetailing notwithstanding, it must be conceded that the expressions may not have the same contextual meaning as assigned or interpreted in tax legislation because the objects and reasons are not, necessarily, congruent.
14. Manufacturers, in the natural order of activities, undertake production and utilise channels for distribution of the products. A proprietorial interest is implicit in packaged products and manufacturers, generally, tend to clear goods that are intended for retail market in packages deliverable as such to customers, whether directly or through a channel of distribution. The consumer does not have the opportunity to use the senses to grade the goods against the wish-list in the mind. Nor is it possible to verify the measure of such pre-packaged commodities. The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the rules notified thereunder are intended to ensure that the consumer is not deluded into purchasing goods that was not intended to be. The prescription of retail sale price ensures that the retailer cannot take advantage of local demand-supply gap to boost prices. Considering the nature and intent of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, the lack the specificity that a taxation statute is required to possess is not surprising. The definitions that distinguish the packaging to which the prescriptions apply should be viewed in that context. The objective being the protection of consumer interests, the prescriptions under the Rules are designed for declaration on the packing intended for delivery as such to the ultimate user. The manufacturer is not required to conform to the prescriptions on other packaging intended for convenience of handling.
15. The pivotal expression in the definitions is intended for. The intent is not manifest in a declaration but the intent of the manufacturer is implicit in the compliance with the prescriptions. It is for that reason that the statute itself contains the circumstances in which penalties can be visited upon the handlers if the prescriptions are flouted on packages displayed for sale by retailers. Likewise, Central Excise Act, 1944 has, since 1999, provided for penal consequence in the event of non-compliance and, since 2003, provided for re-assessment. The State cannot, except under health and safety laws, dictate the manner in which goods are to be delivered or received by the customer but it has prescribed the information content to be declared if the goods are delivered to the customer as pre-packaged with the consumer as the target of marketing. The gap between intent and the outcome is bridged by enforcement at the last point of sale. Other than display on the retail shelf, intent of retail sale is ascertainable only by conforming with prescriptions of statute governing retail sale. The survival of the manufacturer as producer of retail goods finds sustenance in compliance with the prescriptions. Therefore, the mandate of declaration is confined to packaging that carry the declaration and it is an offence if that intent is suppressed by non-declaration on the package. Multi-packages, too, are identifiable by the intent manifested in declaration on the package. Tax authorities are not empowered to dictate or presume intention for retail sale. Nor can the prescription in Rules be insisted upon as a strategy to levy a higher amount of tax.
16. The definitions also make it clear that the manner in which the consumer chooses to buy the product is not germane to determination of applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Retail packages do not pose the problem of applicability of Rules. Except to the extent that they are less than the stipulated weight or measure in Rule 34, the intent is apparent in marking of retail sale price and other information on the package. The definition of wholesale package in Rule 2(x) of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and Chapter IV of the Rules distinguish the intent of the manufacturer by the exclusion of retail sale price on the package. This confirms our view that packages containing more than one piece or package may be for retail or whole-sale distribution and the intent for retail distribution in the secondary packing is made apparent by declaring the retail sale price thereon.
17. The Rules supra were not notified with taxation as an objective. It predates the incorporation of section 4A in Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the manufacturer who is obliged under Central Excise Act, 1944 to discharge the duty liability and a harmonious construction of section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 crystallises the assessment method upon declaring retail sale price on an package cleared from the factory except when the provisions Rule 2A or Rule 34 is attracted.
18. Having perused the records in detail, we notice that there is no finding that the secondary packing containing the glue sticks and correction pens had retail selling price declared on them. Nor is there any allegation that the said goods were displayed for sale to the ultimate consumer in the secondary packing. Consequently, the packages are not multi-piece packages as it was, apparently, not the intent of the manufacturer to sell the goods to the ultimate consumer in the secondary packing. And as retail selling price is not declared on the secondary packages, section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable. The pieces inside the secondary packing are, apparently, intended for sale only as individual pieces at the last point of sale to the ultimate consumer.
19. These individual pieces did have the retail sale price declared on them; however, the net weight or measure contained in each of the sticks and pens do not exceed 10 grams and 10 milliliters respectively. They are, therefore, covered by the exception in Rule 34 (b) of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and declaration on the piece is merely voluntary. The original authority had proceeded on the ground that correction pens are never bought by weight by a customer but is always perceived as purchasable only in numbers. That may be so from the point of view of the consumer but, in accordance with our discussion of this aspect supra, that viewpoint is not relevant to the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The exemption provision in Rule 34 does expressly qualify the threshold of grammage and mililitrage with the clause if sold by weight or measure. The original authority has contrived to fit correction pens within the exclusion of numbers from the exemption provision with his theory of consumer behaviour. This is flawed reasoning. Pre-packaged commodities are, undoubtedly, bought as packages but that does not render the declaration of weight or measure on the package to be irrelevant. If it were irrelevant, there would no reason for such elaborate prescription of data, including weight, on the packaging in the Rules and Rule 34 also would be otiose. The original authority appears to have confused the outer packing in the shape of a pen, which is merely the container, with the material inside. Therefore, the sticks and pens containing commodities that are below the threshold prescribed for compliance with the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 are beyond the ambit of section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
We are in full agreement with the above analysis and find that the issue in the present case can be examined and resolved on this background.
11. The Revenue relied on the decision of Larger Bench in Roys Industries Ltd. (supra). We have perused the said decision carefully. In the said decision it is recorded that the poly packs and pet jars are sold in retail. There is evidence that weight, MRP, number of pieces are printed on the labels of the poly packs and pet jars. The Tribunal distinguished the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Kraftech Products (supra) stating that the total weight of all pieces together does not exceed the limit prescribed for such packages. The Tribunal observed that the ratio of Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the sale of wholesale package and the ratio of Kraftech Products (supra) would apply to sale of multi-piece retail packages. If the total weight of multi-piece retail package is above 20 grams as in the said case, the MRP based valuation would apply. We note the case of the Revenue in the present proceedings is not supported by the reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Roys Industries Ltd. (supra). In the present case, the polythene pack containing multiple pieces of chewing tobacco pouches of 6 gms. or 7 gms. do not carry the MRP of such polythene pack. As such, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the present case. The Larger Bench in Roys Industries Ltd. (supra) observed that the Departments appeal against the order in Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. is pending in Honble Supreme Court. We note that the said decision of the Tribunal in Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. has since been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.).
12. Similarly, we find the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Tribunal in Arora Product (supra) and Radha Tobacco Co. (supra) is also not appropriate. In the said case, the assessee had affixed MRP in the multi-piece package and it was recorded that the intention is such that the multi-piece package was also for retail sale. In fact in Radha Tobacco Co. the assessee claimed for assessment under Section 4A. The matter was remanded for re-verification of facts regarding wholesale/multi-piece packs. Whereas in the present case it is recorded that the polythene pack containing multiple pieces of chewing tobacco pouches were not intended for retail sale and they did not bear the MRP for such polythene pack as a whole. Further, we should note that whether a particular package is a retail pack or a wholesale pack is a question of fact to be decided in each case applying the relevant definition. Here it is necessary to note the nature of product and the manner of transaction at the retail end of sale. Chewing tobacco is packed in small pouches of specific weight. There are different types of pouches carrying different quantity of chewing tobacco. The weight of such tobacco contained in the pouch is printed. The price is also accordingly fixed. Admittedly, the price fixed has direct relevance to the quantity of tobacco contained in the pouch. The contention of the Revenue that chewing tobacco is sold by numbers is not tenable. While the retail pouch may be sold in number, the sale is with reference to the weight of tobacco contained in the said pouch. As an analogy we can mention that toothpaste in tubes and talcum powder in packs are sold in numbers. But the reference is to the weight contained, either of toothpaste or powder inside the pack. The price is directly influenced by the weight of the content. The buyer and the seller is fully aware that the product is sold by its quantum though for convenience it is put in unit packages. Hence, it is clear that product like chewing tobacco is sold always with reference to the weight contained in the pouch though the pouch as a unit is sold. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the lower authority in the impugned order on this count.
13. In Gupta Tobacco Co. (supra), the Tribunal held that chewing tobacco was not capable of being sold in numbers but was sold in weight of 5, 7 and 9 gms. pouches with no requirement for MRP under SWM Rules. The said decision has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court (supra). In Loknath Prasad Gupta (supra), the Tribunal held that 25 pouches of Khaini each containing 5 gms./9 gms. packed in polythene packs without MRP in such package is not governed by valuation under Section 4A. This order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court (supra). In Swan Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal examined, in detail, the implication of the terms intended for retail sale and sold to ultimate consumer. When the manufacturer intends the wholesale pack to be sold to a retailer and not to ultimate consumer the assessment under Section 4A is not sustainable. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court, as mentioned earlier.
14. We also referred to Board Circular dated 28/02/2002 which clarified the scope of application of provision of Section 4A. It was noted that SWM Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder are administered by the State Governments. In case of doubt a clarification may be obtained from the concerned Department of the State Government. In the present case, we note that for a situation covered by same set of facts, clarification was sought by the industry from the Legal Metrology Department. In response to letter dated 28/07/2003 of All India Tobacco Manufacturers Association, the Director of Legal Metrology, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India vide his letter dated 22/08/2003 clarified the legal position to the effect that all packages below 10 gms. are totally exempt from the purview of rules. Further, in accordance with Rule 2 (x) and Rule 29 the package containing 10 or more retail packages, common wholesale package, need not carry retail sale price declaration thereon. Similarly, in response to a letter dated 24/07/2003 of Maharashtra Manufacturers Association, the controller of Legal Metrology, Government of Maharashtra vide his letter dated 20/08/2003 clarified on similar lines.
15. On careful analysis of the issue involved, legal provision of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and applicable provisions of SWM Act and Rules made thereunder and on close scrutiny of impugned order and the grounds of appeal, we find that the impugned goods cannot be subjected to as MRP based assessment under Section 4A. The findings of the lower authority in the impugned orders are legally sustainable. The refund involved in one of the appeals allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be granted after due scrutiny of documents as per the requirement of the applicable provisions.
16. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. These appeals are dismissed as unsustainable. The Cross Objections filed are also disposed of.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 17/01/2017.) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
20EX/1840 of 2007