Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Gunesh India Private Limited vs Commissioner, Central Excise &Amp ... on 19 May, 2022
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. II
Service Tax Appeal No. 50245 of 2021 (DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-04-2021 dated 13.10.2020
passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur.)
M/s Gunesh India Pvt Limited Appellant
th
409, 4 Floor, Jaipur Centre,
B-2, Byepass Junction,
Tonk Road, Jaipur
Rajasthan-302018
VERSUS
Commissioner, Central Excise Respondent
& Central Goods, Service Tax Jaipur-I NCR Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 (Raj) APPEARANCE:
Shri B.L. Narsaimhan & Sh. Narendra Singhvi, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Radhe Tallo, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 50452/2022 Date of Hearing: 29.11.2021 Date of Decision: 19.05.2022 ANIL CHOUDHARY:
The issue involved in this Appeal under the fact that the appellant who are engaged in providing different services to Ultratech Cement Ltd, mainly (a) Clearing & Forwarding Agent Services (on which service tax is paid) and (b) on the transportation of goods by
2 ST/50245/2021 road with issuance of consignment note for Ultratech, on which service tax is paid by Ultratech under RCM under the head GTA, and service of transport provided without issuance of consignment note from other GTA's, on which no service tax is payable. Whether the Revenue is correct in clubbing the aforementioned two services, which are provided under different agreements as a composite service of C&F agency and demand tax.
2. The second issue involved is whether the impugned order is bad for travelling beyond the scope of show-cause notice, inasmuch as in the SCN, the demand was proposed under the head 'cargo handling service'. The demand in the impugned order is confirmed under the Head C&F Service.
3. The Appellant is engaged in the business of providing different services to M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (for short 'Ultratech') and to other service recipients. The activities of the Appellant carried out during the relevant period are divided into the following categories:
a) Clearing & forwarding agent services (for short 'C&F services') to Ultratech [the Appellant has paid Service Tax on such transactions during the relevant period and reflected the same in ST-3 returns]; and
b) Transportation of goods by road( (i) with issuance of consignment notes for Ultratech, on which Service Tax is paid by Ultratech under reverse charge mechanism under transportation of goods by road service (for short 'GTA service'), and (ii) without issuance of consignment notes from other GTAs, on which no Service Tax is payable).
4. These services are provided by the Appellant under different agreements with Ultratech and other service recipients. The classification of such independent services provided under different 3 ST/50245/2021 agreements is determined accordingly by the Appellant in the aforesaid manner.
5. During audit of records of the Appellant, it was pointed out that the Appellant has entered into composite agreement with Ultratech for transportation of cement from specified railway locations/ godowns to specified destinations, but was splitting its invoices into i) that for handling charges and ii) that for transportation charge, and paying Service Tax on handling charges only. That the activities of the Appellant qualify as 'cargo handling services' and not as GTA services.
6. This was followed by issuance of SCN to the Appellant on 15.10.2019, on the basis of audit observations that the Appellant has entered into composite agreement with Ultratech, and have split its invoices thereunder, resulting in short payment of tax.
7. In its reply to SCN, the Appellant pointed out that C&F services and GTA services are rendered to Ultratech under different and independent agreements, having no relation with each other and thus, the very factual basis adopted in the SCN is incorrect.
8. The SCN was adjudicated on contest vide the Impugned Order holding that for execution of all agreements, the Appellant is required to undertake several activities, which are classifiable as C&F agency services. That a comprehensive service agreement having multifarious limbs has deliberately been divided into various contracts, with intent to avoid true and correct Service Tax on the entire consideration against the composite 'single service'. That a single transaction cannot be allowed to be vivisected by way of culling out only transportation component with intent to claim abatement.
4 ST/50245/2021
9. Against the Impugned Order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant on various grounds and inter alia the Appellant urges as follows:-
The Impugned Order has gone beyond the scope of SCN and thus, confirmation of demand is not sustainable.
10.1 It is submitted that the basis for confirmation of demand in the Impugned Order is beyond the scope of SCN and thus, the same cannot be sustained. As a result, the demand confirmed against the Appellant is liable to be set aside.
10.2 Attention is invited to Para 8 of the audit report and Para 2, 5 and 11 of the SCN, wherein it was alleged that the entire activity undertaken by the Appellant under various agreements is a composite service, and it is at the time of raising invoices that the Appellant had split the activity into two parts, i.e. cargo handling charges and transportation charges.
10.3 In it reply to SCN, the Appellant pointed out that it entered into separate agreements from time to time with Ultratech, having different scope and had accordingly classified its activities and raised invoices. That the activities are to be classified separately as per agreement, and accordingly, there is no short-payment of tax by the Appellant. The Appellant explained the nature of activities carried out under each agreement separately and its consequent classification. 10.4 The demand has been confirmed in the Impugned Order by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that a 'comprehensive service' agreement having multifarious limbs has deliberately been divided into various contracts, with intent to avoid true and correct Service Tax on the entire consideration, against the composite 'single 5 ST/50245/2021 service' and that the activities of the Appellant are classifiable as C&F agency services 10.5 It is submitted that this basis for confirmation of demand in the Impugned Order is clearly beyond the scope of SCN, in as much as the SCN was issued on the presumption that the Appellant split the consideration into 'handling charges' and 'transportation charges' at the time of raising invoices only. There was no allegation in the SCN that a comprehensive service agreement was divided into various contracts. In fact, the SCN referred to various different agreements of the Appellant in Para 3 and 4 thereof, though selectively. 10.6 It is a settled law, SCN is the foundation of any proceedings and its adjudication and all subsequent proceedings are to be limited to the allegations made in the SCN. After all, the purpose of adjudication is to ascertain the sustainability of allegations made in the SCN only, and not to make out a totally new case against an assesse. If the adjudication proceedings are beyond the scope of allegations made in the SCN, the confirmation of demand therein cannot be sustained. In this regard, reliance is placed on Delhi Duty Free Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi South, 2020-TIOL-775-CESTAT-DEL.
10.7 In view of above, it is submitted that confirmation of demand in the Impugned Order, being beyond the scope of SCN, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
Combining of different agreements as one based on assumptions and presumptions is against the settled principles of classification under Service Tax law.
11.1 Section 66B of the Act provides for charge of Service Tax on service provided by one person to another for consideration. The 6 ST/50245/2021 term 'service' is defined in Section 65B(44) to mean an activity carried out by one person for another, for consideration. For determining the levy and charge of Service Tax, thus, it is the understanding between the service provider and the service recipient, which needs to be considered.
11.2 In the instant case, both the SCN and the Impugned Order referred to different agreements of the Appellant with Ultratech. However, without any basis and based on just presumptions and assumptions, the Impugned Order held that a comprehensive service agreement was deliberately divided into various contracts. There is no basis given in the Impugned Order for such findings and a perusal of the agreements independently shows that such finding is otherwise incorrect. The activities carried out by the Appellant under these agreements are different and independent, and accordingly, to be classified separately.
11.3 It is submitted that no provision of the Act or any other law restricts a service provider in rendering more than one service to a service recipient. It, however, does not mean that all such services are to be combined and classified as one, merely because the service provider and the service recipient happen to be same. It is the nature of the services and not the capacity of parties, which determines the classification thereof.
11.4 Reliance is placed on decision of this Tribunal in Jain Carrying Corporation v. CCE, Jaipur, 2014-TIOL-3069-CESTAT- DEL, wherein the question was regarding classification of separate activities carried out under the same contract. Even though the said activities were carried out under the same contract. The Tribunal 7 ST/50245/2021 upheld separate classification of such activities, considering the different scope and nature thereof. This decision has been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court at 2015 (39) STR J370 (SC). The present case of the Appellant is on a better footing, where activities are carried out under independent agreements.
11.5 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions:
Centre for Development of Advance Computing v. CCE, Pune, 2015- TIOL-1642-CESTAT-MUM HN Coal Transport Private Limited v. CCE & ST, Raipur, 2018 (8) TMI 173 - CESTAT NEW DELHI Mosaic India Private Limited v. CCE & ST, Rajkot, 2014-TIOL-2513-
CESTAT-AHM CCE, Kolhapur v. Sunil Arora, 2018 (4) TMI 538 - CESTAT Mumbai Synergy Baxi Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I, 2019 (11) TMI 1166 - CESTAT New Delhi 11.6 In view of above, the findings in the Impugned Order based on assumptions and presumptions cannot be sustained and confirmation of demand therein is fit to be set aside. Without prejudice, the Appellant has correctly discharged its Service Tax liability and there is no short-payment thereof. 12.1 It is submitted that the activities carried out by the Appellant under separate agreements are to be classified separately. The Appellant has accordingly classified its activities and paid due Service Tax thereon, as applicable, as mentioned hereinabove. In such a case, there is no short-payment of Service Tax. 12.2 The activities carried out by the Appellant under different agreements are explained with help of the following table:
Sr. Particulars Scope of Work Agreement Remarks 8 ST/50245/2021 No. /Contract Enclosed as I. Handling Activities 1 Rake Handling The Appellant acts as RUD-1 to This is treated as Agent Agreement handling agent of the SCN composite service service recipient, wherein and Service tax it undertakes handling, 1 was charged on unloading and loading of entire value and cement bags and No dispute paid by the transportation from Appellant.
Railway platforms to
godowns of Ultratech (for
stock transfer)
2 Godown Handling The Appellant acts as the RUD-4,8 to This is handling
Agent Agreement Godown handling agent SCN service and Service
(With or without of Ultratech, wherein it tax was charged
custody) manages arrival, No dispute and paid by the
handling, storing, Appellant on the
stacking, unloading, entire value.
loading of the cement
bags in the designated
Godowns of Ultratech. No
transportation is
undertaken by the
Appellant under this
agreement.
3 Handling Agent The Appellant undertakes RUD-7,9 to This is treated as
Agreement (Rake both godown and rake SCN composite service
and godown handling activity including and Service tax
handling) transportation from No dispute was charged on
railway platforms to entire value and
Godowns of the recipient paid by the
for stock transfer. Appellant.
II. Transportation work
4 Secondary The Appellant is engaged RUD-2,3,5,6 Treated as GTA
Transportation to undertake only pure service and Service
Agreement (Pure transportation activity of Tax was payable by
transportation cement bags from one Ultratech under
activity) place to another place as RCM.
per requirements from
railway/godowns/depots Dispute:
directly to the customers. Classification:
No activity other than
transportation, such as Cargo Handling
handling, packing, loading Service (as per
or unloading etc., is revenue)
undertaken under this
agreement. For such
transportation, the
Appellant issues
consignment notes.
5 Primary The Appellant is engaged Annexure- Treated as GTA
transportation to undertake only pure 12 service and
9 ST/50245/2021
agreement transportation activity of Service Tax was
cement bags directly from payable by
Plant locations of Ultratech under
Ultratech to the RCM.
customers. No activity
other than transportation, Disputed
such as handling,
packing, loading or
unloading etc., is
undertaken under this
agreement. For such
transportation, the
Appellant issues
consignment notes.
6 Transportation During the relevant Annexure- The said services
work taken from period, Appellant was 14 are covered under
other GTAs for also engaged in providing negative list of
Ultratech transportation services services under
through other GTAs, Section 66D(p) of
wherein consignment the Act, and thus,
notes were issued by not taxable.
other GTAs and Appellant
was providing service as Disputed
mere intermediary for
transportation of goods by
road, other than as GTA.
12.3 The proposition, that the Appellant is only providing
transportation services under the transportation agreement, is
strengthened by the following facts:
a) It is required to undertake transportation of goods from platform/godowns to various destinations.
b) There are no specifications in the Transport agreement regarding handling, loading/unloading activity.
c) Definition of 'transportation services' is limited to physical carriage of cement bags from storage places to various destinations.
d) Delivery is time specific and the Appellant is only entitled to freight charges. The Appellant is acting as a bailee of the goods and the drivers are required to carry requisite documents, including lorry receipts during transport.
e) The Appellant is not entitled to any freight charges in case of non-delivery. This shows that if Appellant was doing other activities under the said agreement, it would have received a fixed sum for that activity, which is not the case.
10 ST/50245/2021 Applicable legal provisions 12.4 Section 66B of the Act provides for levy of Service Tax other than those specified in the negative list under Section 66D of the Act. As per Section 66D(p)(i) of the Act, no Service Tax shall be chargeable on the activities of transportation of goods except when undertaken by a GTA or a courier agency. Therefore, service provided by a GTA is taxable. 12.5 Section 65B(26) of the Act defines GTA to mean any person, who provides service in relation to transportation of goods by road and issues consignment note. As per the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules (for short 'ST Rules'), the liability to pay Service Tax has been shifted to the person liable to pay freight i.e. Service recipients as enlisted in Rule 2(1)(d)(v), which includes a body corporate.
12.6 Reference is further invited to Notification No. 30/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012, which specified GTA services for the purposes of Section 68(2) of the Act, w.e.f. 01.07.2012 wherein the whole liability to pay Service Tax in respect of GTA services has been shifted to the service recipient.
Application of legal provisions to activities carried out by the Appellant 12.7 Therefore, with regard to the first three categories of agreements as discussed above, full Service Tax liability has already been discharged. Further, fourth, fifth and sixth category of agreements, hereinabove, the same are pure transportation agreements without involvement of any other activity. The Appellant issues consignment notes in the fourth and fifth category of agreements, so it qualifies to be a GTA and on such GTA services rendered to Ultratech, the liability to pay tax rests with Ultratech under RCM.
12.8 In the sixth category of agreements, the consignment notes are issued by the main transporter itself. Therefore, the Appellant does not qualify to be a GTA in such transaction and its services are in the nature of transportation of goods by road, other than by GTA, which are covered under the negative list of services under Section 66D(p) of the Act, hence no Service Tax is chargeable under Section 66B of the Act.
11 ST/50245/2021 12.9 The Impugned Order, in confirmation of demand, has relied on decision of this Tribunal in Singh Trading Company v. CCE, 2017-TIOL- 3602-CESTAT-DEL.
It is submitted that the said decision has no applicability to the present case, as in the said case, all activities were being carried out by the assessee under a single agreement and the assessee started the practice of issuance of separate invoices after a certain period of time, unlike the present case. Therefore, it was held that the transportation charges will form part of the C&F agency services. In the instant case, however, the Impugned Order has incorrectly clubbed different services provided under different agreements, without any basis.
12.10 In view of above, confirmation of demand in the Impugned Order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
As M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. has already paid Service Tax on GTA services under RCM, no tax on such services can be demanded from the Appellant 13.1 Without prejudice, it is submitted that Ultratech has already paid Service Tax, on GTA services provided by the Appellant, under RCM. In such a case, demand of Service Tax from the Appellant on the said services again suffers from the vice of double taxation and cannot be sustained. 13.2 In this regard, it is urged that, Revenue has not disputed the fact of payment of Service Tax liability by Ultratech under RCM. The very case of the department in the SCN and the Impugned Order is that the alleged methodology has been adopted by the Appellant to enable Ultratech to pay Service Tax under RCM and that Ultratech has paid such tax at abated value.
13.3 It is settled principle of law that Service Tax cannot be demanded twice on a single transaction from both service providers and service recipient. In this regard, reliance is placed on Sharma Cement Clearing Agency v. CCE, 2017 (12) TMI 1135 - CESTAT Allahabad 13.4 Accordingly, the demand of Service Tax on transportation services provided to Ultratech is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
Without prejudice, demand has been incorrectly computed. 14.1 Without prejudice, it is submitted that the demand has been incorrectly computed in the Impugned Order.
12 ST/50245/2021 14.2 Transportation charges of Rs. 93,80,073/- received by the Appellant from Ultratech for the transportation service provided under the Rake Handling Agent Agreement have already been charged to Service Tax, and Rs. 13,05,481/- has already been paid as such.
14.3 To the extent of Service Tax already paid by the Appellant contemporaneously during the relevant period, the confirmation of demand in the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside.
14.4 Further, the demand has been incorrectly calculated by the department as the alleged taxable value would be inclusive of the amount of Service Tax.Hence, for Service Tax calculation, the amount received by the Appellant should be considered as cum tax payment and Service Tax should be calculated accordingly.
Extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. No interest is payable and no penalty is imposable.
15.1 It is submitted that the Appellant has not supressed any facts and the issues involved in the present matter pertain to interpretation of the contractual arrangements and legal provisions. 15.2 This is also clear from the different stands taken by the department itself at the stage of audit report, SCN and Impugned Order. The different stands taken regarding the interpretation of agreements have already been highlighted above. It also needs to be noted that in the audit report, the department alleged that the subject activities of the Appellant are comprehensively classifiable as 'cargo handling services' as well as in the SCN. In Impugned Order, however, these are held to be in nature of C&F agency services. This itself evidences the possibility of different interpretations in background of the present matter. 15.3 Further, the burden to show positive act of suppression is on the department, in which it has completely failed. The Impugned Order has, on the other hand, observed that it was responsibility of the Appellant to declare correct facts under self-assessment regime and but for the audit, the relevant facts would not have come to notice of the department. 15.4 It is submitted that these findings are insufficient to invoke the extended period, in as much as they do not establish any positive act of suppression on part of the Appellant. Under the self-assessment regime, the department's responsibility to undertake scrutiny of records of assesses is not obliterated and thus, it must be undertaken within the permitted period. These similar findings were considered by Hon'ble Tribunal in Gannon 13 ST/50245/2021 Dunkerley& Co Ltd v. CST (Adjudication), Final Order No. 51627/2020, dated 22.10.2020 in Appeal No. ST/55125/2014[Page 72 - 91 of compilation], and it was held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
15.5 For the same reasons and as there was a reasonable cause for failure to pay tax, if any, on part of the Appellant, the imposition of penalty is also not sustainable.
15.6 For the aforesaid reasons, the demand of Service Tax, interest and penalty confirmed in the Impugned Order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
16. In support of the impugned order, the learned DR for Revenue relies on the impugned order. He further refers to the findings in para 30.4 of the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner have inter alia held that the assessee have contended that since the service tax was liable to be paid by the service recipient under Reverse Charge Mechanism, the same stands discharged by Ultratech Cement Ltd on the freight charges incurred by them. Learned Commissioner observed that this was not a case of double jeopardy. Rather the appellant- assessee have failed to pay service tax on the whole of the consideration received from the service recipient. They have provided service as defined under Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act and accordingly, they are liable to pay service tax on the same. Further held that the services involved in the present case are not stand alone transport services as claimed. Thus, the concept of 'Reverse Charge Mechanism' was not applicable and the service recipient- Ultratech was not required to pay the tax. Thus, the demand of service tax was held to be legally tenable and not bad in law. It was further held that in view of the findings, the contention of the appellant that they have been engaged in providing transportation service under several transportation contracts and hence, the same cannot be clubbed with 14 ST/50245/2021 cargo handling agreement, is not at all sustainable.
17. The learned AR places reliance on the precedent rulings of this tribunal in the case of -
i) Singh Transport Company vs. CCE (2018) 9 GSTL 201 Tribunal Delhi
i) Adarsh Agency vs. CCE & C. (2017) 6 GST 157 Tribunal Mumbai.
18. Having considered the rival contention, we find that admittedly the demand in the show cause notice was proposed under the head- cargo handling service, whereas in the impugned order-in-original, the demand have been confirmed under the head C & F Agency Service. Thus evidently, the adjudicating authority have travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. Thus, the impugned order is bad on this score alone.
19. The learned Counsel for the Appellant have taken us through few sample agreements which have been relied upon in the show cause notice. Agreement dated 04/11/2014 has been labelled as 'Rake Handling Agent Agreement'. This agreement is entered into between Ultratech Cement Ltd and M/s S S Enterprises (proprietor Gunesh India private Ltd). Under the clause, scope of work contained in para 2 of the agreement, it is provided that the appellant-assessee shall call the company officials/depot incharge every day to receive instructions regarding arrival of Rakes at the railway siding situated at Kota RH and also collect information regarding arrival of rakes from the Railway Office. The appellant is also required to track the consignment from the railway online system. Further, the appellant is required to arrange to unload the cement from the rake and to clear the consignments from the railway siding within the free time allowed by the Railways without incurring any demurrage/wharfage etc. Further, the appellant 15 ST/50245/2021 is required to co-ordinate for placement of loaded trucks from railway platform/goods/godowns to the various godowns on regular basis. The list of such godowns is as per the approved freight list. In case of emergency, as per the instructions of the company, the trucks/vehicles carrying the consignment can be diverted to other specified godowns and the appellant shall be obliged to honour such instructions. The appellant is also required to co-ordinate with secondary transporter engaged by the company to load the cement against orders of customers as per the instructions of company officer. In case, any truck of customer is placed, than the same will also be loaded as per the company's instructions. Admittedly, under this agreement the appellant have deposited the service tax on the full value of consideration and there is no dispute in this regard.
20. We further find, as regards the transportation agreement dated 27/09/2014 between Ultratech Cement Ltd and the appellant, wherein the appellant is engaged to undertake only pure transportation activity of cement bags from one place to another. The scope of work as provided in the para-2 of the agreement (RUD-2), provides that the appellant shall place trucks for transportation of consignment of the company from railway platform/shed/godown to the various destinations including those of dealers/stockist/individual customers as per the company's instructions on regular basis. The transport work shall be mainly carried out to different places in Rajasthan from Mata ka Than godown under Jodhpur depot. The list of specified destinations is as per the approved freight list forming part of the agreement. The other conditions are similar to the earlier agreement referred to hereinabove. Thus, we find that under this agreement under the scope 16 ST/50245/2021 of work, the appellant have correctly treated the work as GTA service and service tax have been rightly discharged by the recipient- Ultratech Cement Ltd under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Thus, the confirmation of demand on the appellant is bad and accordingly set aside.
21. Now we deal with the issue, where the appellant is not the GTA. The appellant have facilitated the transportation, the services have been provided by other GTA who have raised the consignment note. As per agreement the appellant have only facilitated the transportation and have collected the transportation charges from the service recipient. We find that such services are not taxable and are covered under the negative list of services as provided in section 66 D (P) of the Act, and thus are not taxable.
22. Under the facts and circumstances, we also find that there is no case of suppression, contumacious conduct or mis-statement on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the extended period of limitation is not attracted and have been wrongly invoked by revenue.
10. We also find that the rulings relied upon by the Revenue are not relevant and are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of this case. We further find that the facts herein are similar to the facts in the case of Jain carrying Corporation vs. CCE 2014-TIOL-3069- CESTAT, Delhi, wherein the assessee entered into a contract for providing 3 different services:- The first service was cleaning of mining area by undertaken various activities which would get covered under the head site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving and demolishing services. The second category of service is merely for transportation of gypsum from one place to the railway station and 17 ST/50245/2021 would appropriately fall under GTA service. The third service required assessee to undertake activity of loading of gypsum into railway wagons/rakes by using mechanical loaders. Revenue wanted to classify the aforementioned three services under 'cargo handling service'. This Tribunal held that the contract may be a composite contract but three services were clearly mentioned separately with separate rates for the same as indicated against each of the service. It was further observed that site formation and cleaning service was brought into tax net w.e.f. 16/06/2005 and GTA service w.e.f. 01/01/2005 from which dates, the appellant was paying service tax. The Tribunal held that there is no justifiable reason to hold that the two services shall form part and parcel of 'cargo handling service'. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the said judgement was further carried in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of this Tribunal reported at 2015 (39) STR J 370(SC).
11. In view of the aforementioned discussion and finding recorded, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant shall be entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2022) (ANIL CHOUDHARY) Member(Judicial) (P. ANJANI KUMAR) Member(Technical) sb