Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
National Aluminium Company Limited vs -Bbsr Commissionerate on 26 April, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.1
Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021
(On behalf appellant)
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.10/Commr.Audit/C.Ex./BBSR/2017-18 dated
26.12.2017 passed by Commissioner (Audit) of CGST & Excise, Bhubaneswar)
M/s National Aluminium Company Limited
(M & R Complex, Damanjodi, Koraput)
Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of CGST & Excise, Bhubaneswar
(C.R.Building, Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha)
Respondent
APPERANCE :
Shri Ravi Raghavan, Shri Jnanesh Mohanty & Ms.Shreya Mundhra, all Advocates for the Appellant Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR.K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.75776/2024 DATE OF HEARING : 22 .04.2024 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.04.2024 Per Ashok Jindal :
By way of this appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking, is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium in its Smelter Plant located at Angul, Odisha. The main raw material used by the appellant is 'Calcined Alumina', which is manufactured at its refinery located at Damanjodi, Odisha. The 'Calcined Alumina' is manufactured from basic raw material, Bauxite Ore. In addition to export is also stock transferred for captive consumption from Damajodi to Angul on 2 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 payment of appropriate duty of excise, on the transaction value determined as per the CAS-4 in terms of Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 8 of Valuation Rules.
2.1 The duty paid by the Damanjodi Unit on Calcined Alumina is availed as Cenvat Credit by the Angul Unit, in terms of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004.
2.2 Out of the total manufactured quantity of calcined alumina at the Damanjodi unit, approximately 60% is exported, 39% is removed to Angul Unit for captive consumption and a negligible quantum of 1% is sold to the independent buyers at factory gate. 2.3 Damanjodi Unit is started removing Calcined Alumina to Angul Unit from the year 1987 and various proceedings were initiated by the respondent and differential duty was demanded on the basis of comparable price, i.e., the price at which the goods are sold to independent buyers at the factory gate. The dispute for the period 1987 to June 2000 was finally resolved by this Tribunal reported in 2000 (125) ELT - 519 (Tri), holding that the price applicable to small buyers to whom stray sales are made, cannot take the character of representative assessable value of goods transferred in bulk to Angul unit for captive consumption.
2.4 With effect from July 1, 2000, Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was amended. The Valuation Rules issued under the said Section, provided for determination of assessable value of goods cleared from the factory under different situations. Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, provided the manner of determination of goods captively consumed 3 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 within the factory and also the goods removed from the factory for captive consumption in a different unit by the same manufacturer. 2.5 Vide Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003, the CBEC clarified that the valuation of captively consumed goods is to be determined in terms of CAS-4 format as applicable to Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
2.6 Despite the said Circular, three Show cause notices were issued by invoking extended period of limitation for the period August, 2000 to October, 2002 on the ground that the assessable value of the Calcined alumina cleared for captive consumption prior to the implementation of the Circular shall not be made as per CAS-4. The said Show Cause Notices duly recorded that 'major portion of calcined alumina manufactured at the factory of the assessee at Damanjodi is cleared/removed for export under bond or on payment of duty to be used in the manufacture of aluminium metal in their Smelter unit at Angul by way of Stock transfer. A small quantity consisting less than 1% is also offered for sale to other buyers at the factory gate'. However, no dispute with respect to the sale price adopted for the independent buyers was raised.
2.7 Subsequently, the demand was confirmed without following CAS-4 on the ground that the Board's Circular dated 13.02.2003 is prospective in nature and will not apply to the pending show cause proceedings. 2.8 The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide the order reported as 2005 (184) ELT 183 (Tri.-Del.) held that the appellants were required to pay duty in terms of CBEC's Circular dated 13.02.2003.
4
Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 2.9 The said order of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2016 (335) ELT A27 (SC).
2.10 Thereafter, all subsequent provisional assessments upto 2013-14 were finalized by the proper officer based on the price as per CAS-4 . The period in dispute in this case is April 2009 to November 2013, for which, the assessments have been finalized and the department has accepted the same, as no appeal was being preferred against the final assessments.
2.11 Thereafter, on the basis of EA-2000 audit of the appellant conducted in December 2013, a Show cause notice dated December 22, 2015 was issued invoking extended period of limitation alleging that the value is to be adopted for Calcined Alumina for captive consumption to its Smelter plant shall not be in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules in as much as it is applicable only when the entire production of a particular commodity is captively consumed. Similarly, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules is applicable only when the entire production of a particular commodity is sold to or through a related person. 2.12 The value to be adopted for the purpose of discharging Excise duty on the stock transfer to the Smelter plant shall be in terms of Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. In terms of the said rule, the price at which the Appellant sells Calcined Alumina to the independent buyers is to be considered.
2.13 The appellant never disclosed the fact of independent buyer sale prior to audit detection during the year 2013. Therefore, the price of sale of the goods to the independent buyers has not been disclosed in the Statutory returns as well. Thus, the appellant has contravened the 5 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 provisions of the Act with an intention to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, extended period of limitation was invocable. 2.14 The appellant contested the show-cause notice but the demand was confirmed in the impugned order where the value is to be taken as sale price to the independent buyer.
2.15 Aggrieved from such order, the appellant is before us.
3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that value of goods transferred to another unit for captive consumption is to be in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and not Rule 4. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside on the ground alone. 3.1 He also submits that the CBEC Circular F.No.354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.06.2000 and Circular No.643/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2002, which clarifies as to how the captive consumption of excisable goods is required to be evaluated, which also includes a transfer of the same to sister concern or unit of another factory of the same company for further use in the manufacture of goods. The said Circulars duly specify that in case of captive consumption in one's factory, including transfer to a sister unit of another factory of the same company, for further use in the manufacture of goods, the valuation would be done under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. He submits that Circulars are binding on the department. To support, he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Melting and Wire Industries reported in 2008 (321) ELT 22 (SC). He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside.
3.2 He further submits that the quantum of Calcined Alumina sold to independent buyers is miniscule (approximately 1%) as against the 6 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 39% cleared to their sister unit in Angul for consumption during the relevant period, therefore, the said prices cannot be adopted as representative prices for stock transfer made by the appellant for captive consumption. For that, he relies on their own case of the appellant as reported in 2000 (125) ELT 519 (Tribunal). 3.3 He also submitted that the present dispute on valuation of calcined alumina transferred to Angul under Rule 8/9 of the Valuation Rules has been settled by this Tribunal in their own case as reported in 2005 (184) ELT - 183 (Tri-Del), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). In the said case, the department has not disputed the valuation mechanism as regards the sale price is to be adopted for the independent buyers. Consequently, it has been held that valuation for captively consumed goods has to be made on the basis of CAS-4. Thus, once the legal position has been settled in the appellant's own case, the adoption of Rule 4 by the authorities is not correct. 3.4 He further submits that the decision in the case of Ispat Industries Vs. Commissioner reported in 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB) is not applicable to the present facts in as much as in that case, the goods transferred by the Dolvi unit to other sister units was not used for captive consumption, whereas in the present case, admittedly, the Calcined alumina has been transferred to Angul for captive consumption. Further, he also submits on the decision in the case of Indian Drug Manufacturers Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (222) ELT 22 (Bom.) is not also applicable to the present case in as much as it pertains to valuation of physician samples supplied for free 7 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 distribution to doctors and not transfer of goods for captive consumption.
3.5 He further submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules vide Notification 14/2013-CE (NT) dated November 22, 2013 and clarified the same vide Circular no. 975/9/2013-CX dated November 25, 2013, the said amendment was brought into force w.e.f. 01.12.2013 is clarificatory in nature, the same is applicable retrospectively. To support, he relies on the following judgments: -
- CCE Vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2015(318) ELT 240 (Kar.)]
- UOI Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2013(297) ELT 166 (Chhattisgarh)] 3.6 In alternative, he submits that the extended period of limitation is not invokable.
3.7 In alternative, he also submits that the entire demand is revenue neutral as the Angul plant, where the Calcined alumina was received and then, was used in the manufacture of aluminium and cleared on payment of Central Excise duty as applicable. It is further submitted that the said recipient unit is entitled for credit of the duty paid by the appellant on the Calcined alumina. Thus, the differential duty payable, if any, is available as cenvat credit at the end of the recipient. Therefore, it is a revenue neutral situation. To support, he relies on the following decisions :
(i) Nirlon Ltd. v. CCE [2015(320) ELT 22 (SC)] 8 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021
(ii) CCE & C (Appeals) v. Narayan Polyplast [2005(179) ELT 20 (SC)]
(iii) CCE v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals [2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC)]
(iv) Hindalco Industries v. Commissioner 2023 (5) TMI 720 -
CESTAT Kolkata
(v) JSL Ltd. v. Commissioner 2024 (3) TMI 488 - CESTAT Kolkata
(vi) HV Transmission Ltd. v. Commissioner 2023 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT Kolkata 3.8 He further submits that as the provisional assessments had been made final and the same has been accepted by the Department, therefore, without challenging the said final assessment, the impugned proceedings are pre-mature. To support, he relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Collector Vs. M/s. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. [2000(120) E.LT. 0285(SC)] and (ii) Priya Blue Ltd. Vs. CC [2004(172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.).
3.9 He also relies on the following rulings :
(i) Honda Siel Power Products Vs. Union of India : 2020 (372) ELT - 30 (All.).
(ii) CCE & C, Tirupati Vs. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Ltd. 2016 (331) ELT - 206 (A.P).
3.10 Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order and submits that as per the decision in the case of Ispat Industries (supra), the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has held that the 9 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 clearance made to the independent buyers is to be the price for calculating the Excise duty payable by the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed by the ld.A.R. for the Revenue that the impugned order is to be affirmed.
5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.
6. After considering the arguments advanced from both sides, the following issue emerges :
(a) Whether the appellant has paid the duty correctly in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or the appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules ?
(b) Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not ?
(c) Whether it is a case of revenue neutrality or not ?
(d) Whether in the absence of challenge of final assessment order, a show-cause notice issued to the appellant is maintainable or not ?
Issue (a) Whether the appellant has paid the duty correctly in accordance with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules or the appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules ?
7. We find that the Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003 is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the same is extracted below :
"Valuation (Central Excise) -- Captive consumption -- Cost of production to be in accordance with CAS-4 10 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 Circular No. 692/8/2003-CX., dated 13-2-2003 F. No. 6/29/2002-CX.I Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Valuation of goods captively consumed.
I am directed to say that on introduction of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000, w.e.f. 1-7-2000, it was clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30-6-2000 (para 21) [2000 (119) E.L.T. T22] that for valuing goods which are captively consumed, the general principles of costing would be adopted for applying Rule 8. The Board has interacted with the Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India (ICWAI) for developing costing standards for costing of captively consumed goods.
2. The Institute of Cost & Works Accountants of India [ICWAI] has since developed the Cost Accounting Standards, CAS 2, 3 and 4, on capacity determination, overheads & cost of production for captive consumption, respectively, which were released by the Chairman CBEC on 23-1-2003.
3. It is, therefore, clarified that cost of production of captively consumed goods will henceforth be done strictly in accordance with CAS-4. Copies of CAS-4 may be obtained from the local Chapter of ICWAI.
4. Board's Circular No. 258/92/96-CX., dated 30-10-96 [1996 (88) E.L.T. T9], may be deemed to be modified accordingly so far as it relates to determination of cost of production for captively consumed goods.
5. This Circular may be brought to the notice of the field formations.11
Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021
6. Suitable Trade Notices may be issued for the benefit of the Trade.
7. Hindi version will follow.
8. Receipt of these instructions may be acknowledged." In view of the above, the Circular clarified the position that the cost of production of captively consumed goods will be done strictly in accordance with CAS-4. Admittedly, in this case also, the appellant has adopted the above said Circular and was paying duty as per CAS-4 in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
8. Further, in the appellant's own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide order dated 04.03.2005, has observed as under :
"5. A perusal of the Circular dated 13-2-2003 makes it clear that what is being advised under that circular is to follow "the general principles of costing". The Circular also makes it clear that "ICWAI has since developed the costing standards......". About the applicability of the circular and the effect of the new costing instructions on the previous instructions, the Circular states as under :
"3. It is therefore, clarified that cost of production of captively consumed goods will henceforth be done strictly in accordance with CAS-4........
4. Board's Circular No. 258/92/1996-C.X., dated 30-10-1996, may be deemed to be modified accordingly in so far as it relates to determination of cost of production for captively consumed goods."
The above paras make it clear that the cost of production of captively consumed goods will "henceforth" be done strictly in accordance with CAS-4. Even in the absence of such a statement, 12 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 it would be correct to follow the Circular inasmuch as 'general principles' are of guidance without regard to time and an assessee would be well within his rights to demand that a dispute involving him may be decided according to "the general principles"
applicable to the issue in dispute, irrespective of what a Circular of the Government may say. In the present case such a situation does not arise since the Circular has taken care to specifically clarify that "existing instructions may be deemed to be modified".
Since the earlier instruction is to be deemed to be modified, it would not be permissible to apply them without the said modification. The appellant-assessees are also right in their contention that Revenue is bound by the Circular; while assessees are at liberty to contest the circulars. Therefore, in pending matters, the assessee can seek determination of his case under a later beneficial circular by pointing out that instructions contained in the earlier circulars are incorrect and the matter should be settled according to "general principles" developed by an authority competent to lay down standards. Tribunal and Courts are duty bound to consider such a contention. This position enunciated in the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Birla Jute and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Collector - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 674 has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd.
6. We may also note that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd. does not support the revenue's contention that assessments for each period should be decided in terms of the Circular of the relevant period, without considering the modifications subsequently made in them. The issue considered in the Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd. judgment was altogether different. It was as to what was the effect of a subsequent circular on a demand which had been raised prior to the issue of a circular. The Court observed as under : 13
Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 "13. Under Section 37B of the Act, the Board is empowered to issue instructions to Central Excise Officers, for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of excisable goods, which instructions, are required to be followed by such officers.
However, under proviso (a) to Section 37B an exception is made. The said proviso states that the said Instructions, orders or directions cannot make any Central Excise Officer to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. Similarly, under proviso (b) such Instructions, shall not bind the discretion of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), discharging appellate functions. In view of the proviso to Section 37B, the said Circular dated 14-7-1994 issued by the Board was not applicable to the facts of the present case. As stated above, in the present case, the Assistant Collector had taken a prima facie view for purposes of reclassification as far back as 17-12-1993. Therefore, the Circular dated 14-7-1994 had no application to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Bags Manufacturer (supra) did not deal with the case where the department had issued show cause notice purporting to reclassify the product prior to the issuance of Instructions by the Board. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case." The ratio of this judgment is that a legally sustainable claim, which had been raised by the Revenue prior to and independently of a circular, cannot be extinguished on a plea that a subsequently issued circular is prospective in operation. That is not the case in the present appeals. The revenue seeks to finalise pending valuations applying different costing principles on the plea that different criteria had been circulated from time to time. The assessees are contesting the correctness of that approach by contending that the instructions contained in the earlier circulars were not in conformity with the general principles of cost accounting, and that the latest circular which incorporated correct principles should be followed in all pending cases. It is also to be 14 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 noticed that the latest circular of 2003 specifically states that the earlier instructions have to be "deemed to be modified" by the later circular. Thus, Revenue had no independently sustainable claim. Its claim is based entirely on circulars issued from to time. That too, on incorrect costing principles. It would be wholly incorrect to apply old circulars without considering the modifications brought about by the latest circular, particularly when, as noted already, it is well settled that assessees are not bound by any circular, though at liberty to seek the benefit of circulars and a Court has to allow such a claim while Revenue is bound by its own circulars.
7. In view of what is stated above, all the appeals are allowed by way of remand with the direction to the original authorities to decide valuation in terms of the Circular No. 692/8/2003, dated 13-2-2003."
The said order of this Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2016.
9. The Revenue sought to distinguish the decision of their own case for the earlier period on the ground that in the case of Ispat Industries (supra), the Larger Bench of this Tribunal held that the assessable goods transferred to another plant of the same assesse is required to determine the value as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules as the goods were sold to the independent buyers also.
10. We find that said decision is distinguishable on the facts of the case, as in that case, the goods were cleared to another plant not for captive consumption whereas in the case in hand, the goods in question have been cleared to their sister unit for captive consumption in manufacturing of excisable goods i.e. aluminium, which has been 15 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to this case.
11. We further take note of the fact that the Circular dated 13.02.2003 on the basis of which the appellant paid the duty is binding on the Revenue as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (supra).
12. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has correctly paid the duty on the goods in question, which has been captively consumed by the sister unit for manufacturing of excisable goods in terms of CBEC Circular No.692/8/2003-CX dated 13.02.2003. On merit, the appellant has rightly paid the duty as per CAS-4 in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.
13. In view of this, we hold that Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issue (b)
(b) Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not ?
14. We take note of the fact that the appellant was paying duty following the decision in their own case (supra) for the earlier period as reported in 2005 (184) ELT 183 (Tri.Del.). During the impugned order, the provisional assessment of the said period has also been finalized.
15. In that circumstances, for the period from April, 2009 to November, 2013, a show-cause notice was issued on 22nd December, 2015 is barred by limitation as the appellant has not suppressed any facts from the Department while paying duty and on finalization of provisional assessment, Therefore, this issue is answered in favour of the appellant. 16
Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 Issue (c)
(c) Whether it is a case of revenue neutrality or not ?
16. We find that the appellant is clearing the goods in question to their sister unit, who is entitled to take the cenvat credit itself. In that circumstances , we hold that it is a revenue neutral situation as held by this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II reported in 2023 (5) TMI 720-CESTAT Kolkata, wherein this Tribunal has observed as under :
"15. The Appellant has argued that the entire exercise is revenue neutral as the duty paid by them will be available as credit for their sister unit. We agree with this view of the Appellant. The duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to their sister unit. This the entire exercise is revenue neutral. In support of their argument the Appellant cited the following decisions:-
a. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune v. Coca-Cola India Pvt.Ltd. [2007 (213) ELT 490 (S.C.)] Classification of goods - Revenue neutrality - Classification of non- alcoholic beverage bases/concentrates manufactured by assessee which are supplied to bottlers, who in turn use the same as raw material in manufacture of beverages - Excise duty payable on beverage bases/concentrates and Modvat credit availed under Notification No. 5/94- C.E. (N.T.) is identical hence, consequences of payment of excise duty after availing Excise Appeal No.631 of 2012 12 Modvat credit was revenue neutral - In view of such stand being taken by assessee, appeals dismissed leaving question of law open.
[paras 6, 7] b. Commr. of C.Ex. & Cus., Vadodara-II v. Indeos ABS Limited [2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.)] Demand - Undervaluation - Revenue neutrality - Tribunal disposed of appeal holding that since goods cleared to sister concern, whatever 17 Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021 duty payable available as credit to own unit (sister concern) hence entire exercise revenue neutral - Grievance now that undervaluation not considered by Tribunal - HELD : Grievance acceptable if ultimate exercise benefited Revenue by collection of duty - No such benefit accrues to exchequer - Tribunal chosen not to determine academic issue - No legal infirmity in impugned order of Tribunal - Sections 4 and 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. - If the Tribunal has chosen not to determine an academic issue, it is not possible to state that any legal infirmity exists in the impugned order of the Tribunal. [para 4]
16. We find the above decisions are squarely applicable to the Appellant. As the entire exercise would be revenue neutral, there is no loss of revenue to the exchequer."
17. Therefore, we hold that it is a revenue neutral situation. On this count also, the appellant is not liable to pay differential duty as adjudicated by the adjudicating authority.
Issue (d)
(d) Whether in the absence of challenge of final assessment order, a show-cause notice issued to the appellant is maintainable or not?
18. Admittedly, in this case, during the impugned period, the appellant cleared the goods provisionally paying duty and all the provisional assessments have made final and the said final assessments have been accepted by the Revenue. In that circumstances, without challenging the said final assessment, the Revenue cannot proceed to issue of show- cause notice to the appellant.
18
Excise Appeal No.75650 of 2021
19. Therefore, we hold that the show-cause notice was not required to be issued without challenging the order of final assessment of the provisional assessments.
20. In view of the above observations, we hold that the demand of duty is not sustainable against the appellant. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant.
21. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2024) Sd/ (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sd/ (K.Anpazhakan) mm Member (Technical)