Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vineera Colonisers Private Limited vs Delhi East on 12 November, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
New Delhi
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. 3
Service Tax Appeal No. 50236 Of 2019
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the
Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence,
New Delhi]
M/s Vineera Colonisers Private Limited : Appellant
7, LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019
Vs
Additional Director General, DGGSTI, New Delhi : Respondent
West Block - VIII, Wing-6, Second Floor R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066 with
2. Service Tax Appeal No. 51176 Of 2018 - Omax Housing & Developers Private Limited vs. Commissionerate Appeal Central Excise, Customs, Service Tax, DGCEI Adjudication Cell [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
3. Service Tax Appeal No. 51177 Of 2018 - Omax Buildwell Limited vs. Commissionerate Appeal Central Excise, Customs, Service Tax, DGCEI Adjudication Cell [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
4. Service Tax Appeal No. 50233 Of 2019 - Dream Tower Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
5. Service Tax Appeal No. 50234 Of 2019 - Subodh Buildwell Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi] 2 ST/50236 & Ors.
6. Service Tax Appeal No. 50235 Of 2019 - Manik Buildwell Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
7. Service Tax Appeal No. 50237 Of 2019 - Advay Properties Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
8. Service Tax Appeal No. 50238 Of 2019 - Arjit Builders Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
9. Service Tax Appeal No. 50239 Of 2019 - Kashish Buildtech Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
10. Service Tax Appeal No. 50240 Of 2019 - Kalp Buildtech Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
11. Service Tax Appeal No. 50241 Of 2019 - Kamini Builders and Promoters Private Limited vs. Commissionerate Appeal Central Excise Customs Service Tax, DGCEI Adjudication Cell [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
12. Service Tax Appeal No. 50242 Of 2019 - Agasthya Properties Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi] 3 ST/50236 & Ors.
13. Service Tax Appeal No. 50243 Of 2019 - Daksh Township Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
14. Service Tax Appeal No. 50244 Of 2019 - Advita Properties Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
15. Service Tax Appeal No. 50245 Of 2019 - Shikhar Landcon Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi]
16. Service Tax Appeal No. 50246 Of 2019 - Jagat Buildtech Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Goods and Service Tax, Delhi East [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, New Delhi] APPEARANCE:
Ms. Shagun Arora, Shri Kunal Aggarwal and Shri Pratyush Pradhan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. 51710-51725/2025 Date of Hearing:31.10.2025 Date of Decision:12.11.2025 4 ST/50236 & Ors.
BINU TAMTA The batch of 16 appeals have been filed against the common adjudication order1 confirming the demand of show cause notices issued to the appellants. The details of the 16 appeals in the present case is given below:-
Demand of Demand of Demand
Appeal No. Show Order in
Service Tax Penalty of
Sl. and Cause Original Period in
Confirmed and under Interest
No. Name of the Notice No. No. and dispute
in dispute (in dispute (in under
Appellants and date date
Rs.) Rs.) dispute
No.
SCN dated 03/2018- 69,41,782/-
20.03.2017 ST dated u/s 78 (1) of
, F. No. 31.01.2018, the Act
DZU/INV/ F. No
220/D/ST/ DZU/Adj/
50236/2019 2014/1673 Omaxe/08/ July 2012- 1,38,83,563/- U/s 75 of
Vineera ('SCN') 2017/1498 March 2013 u/s 73 (1) of the the Act
1.
Colonisers (Page 129- 2('Impugn ('relevant Finance Act, (not
Pvt. Ltd. 379 of ed Order') period') 1994 ('Act') quantified)
Volume I (Page 65 - 5,000/- u/s 77
of the 128 of (1) of the Act
Appeal Volume I
paper of Appeal
book) paper
book)
No. 1,73,396/- u/s
03/2018- 78 (1) of the
SCN dated
ST dated Act.
50244/2019 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 3,46,791/- u/s
, F. No. July 2012- the Act
2. Advaita F. No 73 (1) of the
DZU/INV/ March 2013 (not
Properties DZU/Adj/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
220/D/ST/ quantified)
Omaxe/08/ (1) of the Act
2014/1674
2017/1498
3
No. 73,71,620/-
03/2018- u/s 78 (1) of
SCN dated
50234/2019 ST dated the Act
20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 1,47,43,240/-
Subodh , F. No. July 2012- the Act
3. F. No u/s 73 (1) of the
BuildwellPvt DZU/INV/ March 2013 (not
DZU/Adj/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
. Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Omaxe/08/ (1) of the Act
2014/1675
2017/1498
4
No. 4,76,712/- u/s
03/2018- 78 (1) of the
SCN dated Act.
50233/2019 ST dated
20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 9,53,423/- u/s
Dream , F. No. July 2012- the Act
4. F. No 73 (1) of the
Tower Pvt. DZU/INV/ March 2013 (not
DZU/Adj/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Omaxe/08/ (1) of the Act
2014/1676
2017/1498
2.
1 Order-in-Original No. 03/2018-ST dated 31.01.2018
5
ST/50236 & Ors.
No. 91,89,346/-
03/2018- u/s 78 (1) of
SCN dated the Act.
50240/2019 ST dated July 2012-
20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, March 2013 1,83,78,691/-
Kalp , F. No. the Act
5. F. No and April u/s 73 (1) of the
BuidtechPvt. DZU/INV/ (not
DZU/ 2014- March Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe 2015 (1) of the Act
2014/1677
/ 08/2017/
14986.
No. 1,55,87,393/-
03/2018- u/s 78 (1) of
SCN dated
ST dated the Act.
50235/2019 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 3,11,74,785/-u/s
Manik , F. No. July 2012- the Act
6. F. No 73 (1) of the
BuildconPvt. DZU/INV/ March 2013 (not
DZU/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act
2014/1678
/ 08/2017/
14987
No. 5,89,617/- u/s
03/2018- 78 (1) of the
SCN dated
ST dated Act.
50242/2019 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 11,79,243/-u/s
Agastaya , F. No. July 2012- the Act
7. F. No 73 (1) of the
Properties DZU/INV/ March 2013 (not
DZU/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
Pvt. Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act
2014/1679
/ 08/2017/
14988.
No. 1,16,31,606/-
July 2012-
03/2018- and 74,987/-
SCN dated March 2013,
ST dated u/s 78 of the
50245/2019 20.03.2017 April 2013 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 2,33,38,200/-u/s Act.
Shikhar , F. No. to March the Act
8. F. No 73 (1) of the
LandconPvt. DZU/INV/ 2014 and (not
DZU/ Act.
Ltd. 220/D/ST/ April 2015 5,000/- u/s 77 quantified)
Adj/Omaxe
2014/1680 to March (1) of the Act
/ 08/2017/
2016
14990.
No. 1,14,65,861/-
July 2012-
03/2018- and 88,124/-
SCN dated March 2013,
50241/2019 ST dated u/s 78 of the
20.03.2017 April 2013 U/s 75 of
Kamini 31.01.2018, 2,30,19,847/-u/s Act.
, F. No. to March the Act
9. Builders and F. No 73 (1) of the
DZU/INV/ 2014 and (not
Promoters DZU/ Act.
220/D/ST/ April 2015 5,000/- u/s 77 quantified)
Pvt. Ltd. Adj/Omaxe
2014/1681 to March (1) of the Act
/ 08/2017/
2016
14991.
July 2012- 4,14,02,789/-
No.
March 2013, and
03/2018-
SCN dated April 2013 37,38,543/-
ST dated
50239/2019 20.03.2017 to March u/s 78 of the U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 8,65,44,121/-u/s
Kashish , F. No. 2014, April Act. the Act
10. F. No 73 (1) of the
BuildtechPvt DZU/INV/ 2014 to (not
DZU/ Act.
. Ltd. 220/D/ST/ March 2015 quantified)
Adj/Omaxe 5,000/- u/s 77
2014/1682 and April
/ 08/2017/ (1) of the Act
2015 to
14992.
March 2016
No. 66,002/- u/s
03/2018- 78 (1) of the
SCN dated
ST dated Act.
Omaxe 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018,
Housing and , F. No. July 2012- 1,32,004/-u/s 73 the Act
11. F. No
Developers DZU/INV/ March 2013 (1) of the Act. (not
DZU/ 5,000/- u/s 77
Pvt. Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act
2014/1683
/ 08/2017/
15004.
51177/2018 SCN dated No. July 2012- 1,43,99,829/-u/s 71,99,915/- U/s 75 of
12.
OmaxeBuild 20.03.2017 03/2018- March 2013 73 (1) of the u/s 78 (1) of the Act
6
ST/50236 & Ors.
well Ltd. , F. No. ST dated Act. the Act. (not
DZU/INV/ 31.01.2018 quantified)
220/D/ST/ 5,000/- u/s 77
2014/1684 (1) of the Act
No. 53,76,233/-
03/2018- u/s 78 (1) of
SCN dated
ST dated the Act.
50238/2019 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 1,07,52,466/-u/s
Arjit , F. No. April 2013- the Act
13. F. No 73 (1) of the
Builders Pvt DZU/INV/ March 2014 (not
DZU/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act.
2014/1685
/ 08/2017/
15006.
No. 12,37,939/-
03/2018- u/s 78 (1) of
SCN dated
ST dated the Act.
50237/2019 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018, 24,75,872/-u/s
Advay , F. No. April 2013- the Act
14. F. No 73 (1) of the
Properties DZU/INV/ March 2014 (not
DZU/ Act. 5,000/- u/s 77
Pvt Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act
2014/1686
/ 08/2017/
15002.
No. 2,58,509/- u/s
03/2018- 78 (1) of the
SCN dated
ST dated Act
50246/2019 20.03.2017 U/s 75 of
31.01.2018,
Jagat , F. No. April 2014- 5,17,017/-u/s 73 the Act
15. F. No
Buildtech DZU/INV/ March 2015 (1) of the Act. (not
DZU/ 5,000/- u/s 77
Pvt. Ltd. 220/D/ST/ quantified)
Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act
2014/1687
/ 08/2017/
15008.
No.
1,89,956/- u/s
SCN dated 03/2018-
78 of the Act.
20.03.2017 ST dated
50243/2019 U/s 75 of
, 31.01.2018,
Daksh April 2015- 1,89,956/-u/s 73 the Act
16. F. No. F. No
Township March 2016 (1) of the Act. (not
DZU/INV/ DZU/ 5,000/- u/s 77
Pvt Ltd. quantified)
220/D/ST/ Adj/Omaxe (1) of the Act
2014/1688 / 08/2017/
15009.
Total - 24,20,29,048/-
2. All the appellants are associated companies of M/s Omax Limited, who is engaged in real estate development. The appellants have entered into memorandum of understanding with M/s Omax Limited, to collaborate with each other to develop a residential/ commercial project. Under the agreement, Omaxe has agreed to provide funds to the appellant for acquisition of land in its name for and on behalf of Omaxe and to deliver the possession thereof to Omaxe for the purposes of developing the project. The recitals of the MOU provide that the Appellant acquires land in its own name for and 7 ST/50236 & Ors.
on behalf of Omaxe. Clause 4 of the MOU provides that the funds provided by Omaxe to the Appellant shall be exclusively utilized for acquiring land for Omaxe only. Clause 5 provides that the Appellant shall hold the acquired land on trust on behalf of Omaxe and shall have no right to sell or lease the same to any other person except Omaxe or its nominee. Clause 6 requires handing over of possession of acquired land by the Appellant to Omaxe. Clause 10 of the MOU provides for the powers to be exercised by Omaxe. Clause 15 of the MOU requires the Appellant to execute General Power of Attorney in favour of Omaxe which entitles Omaxe to the following:
a) To advertise and issue printed material regarding the project in its own name and engage broker/ dealers for booking/ sale of the built-
up/ saleable areas of the said complex;
b) To book/ reserve saleable built-up area in the project either by itself or through its broker and to issue allotment letter to the prospective buyers, to undertake correspondence and issue demand letters to the prospective buyers vis-à-vis saleable area of the said project so booked/ reserved by it and for this purpose to conduct/ undertake advertisement, launching/ promotion campaign etc.;
c) To receive booking/ sale consideration, all deposits, charges etc. either in down payment or in instalments from the prospective buyer(s) of the said project byway of cheque demand draft/ pay order drawn in its own name and issue receipts thereof; and
d) To execute, sign and present for registration before proper registering authority, proper sale/ conveyance deed for conveying the rights; interests, lines and titles in the built up spaces with 8 ST/50236 & Ors.
proportionate rights in the said land or any part thereof, in favour of the intending purchaser(s) and for the purpose of conveying the same absolutely and forever in favour of the intending purchaser of his/ her nominee(s) to do all acts, deeds and things which are receipt thereof, and to deliver the possession thereof in its name to the said purchaser or to his or her nominee(s) either physical or constructive, as may be feasible.
3. In pursuance to the MOU, Appellant received Rs. 12,62,10,127/- during the relevant period for purchase of land. Omax also agreed to allot an area admeasuring 50 Sq. Yards of land in the developed project for the appellant. Pursuant to the search of the office premises of the M/s Omax Limited and after recording the statement of their Director Mr. Jai Bhagwan Goyel, show cause notice was issued to the appellants for the periods specified in the chart referred above. The appellants were called upon to pay service tax under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest and penalties on the ground that the transfer of land development rights which include the right to develop, contract and market for a consideration is covered under definition of services as it does not involve transfer of title in immovable property by way of sale, gift or any other manner. The stand of the revenue was that the rights transferred included not only the rights to develop the land, also the marketing and selling rights wherein the land owners has forgone their rights to sale the land. Forgoing of such rights is „deemed service‟ in terms of section 66E of the Act. On adjudication, the entire demand of service tax on all the 16 land owning companies was confirmed. 9
ST/50236 & Ors.
4. Heard Ms. Shagun Arora, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Shri Kunal Aggarwal and Shri Pratyush Pradhan and Mr. Shashank Yadav, learned Authorized Representative for the Department.
5. Ms. Shagun Arora, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the issue of transfer of land development rights involves transfer of title in immovable property which stands excluded from the definition of „service‟ under Section 65B (44) of the Act and consequently stands excluded from the charge of service tax. She submitted that the issue is no longer res-integra and stands decided in series of decisions:-
(a) DLF Commercial Projects Corporations vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Gurugram 2
(b) M/s Genius Probuild Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Rajasthan3
(c) Sadoday Builders Private Limited vs. Jt.
Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and ors. 4
(d) Chheda Housing Development Corporation vs. Bibijan Shaikh Farid and others5
6. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel that the issue of transfer of development rights does not amount to rendering of services under the head of „development rights‟ is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the decisions referred to above. We would like to refer to the decision in the case of Genius Private Limited summarizing the earlier decisions as under:-
2 2019 (27) GSTL 712 (Tri.-Chan.) 3 2025-VIL-1636-CESTAT-DEL-ST 4 2011 SCC Online Bom 760 5 2007 (3) Mh. L.J. 402 10 ST/50236 & Ors.
"7. Considering the decisions referred, we find that the Bombay High Court in Chheda Housing Development Corporation versus Bibijan Shaikh Farid (2007 (2), referred to the definition of 'immovable property' under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also the decisions on it, held that the benefit arising from the land is immovable property and TDR being a benefit arising from the land, the same would be held to be immovable property.
8. In DLF Commercial Projects Corporations versus Commissioner of ST, Gurugram [2019 (27) GSTL 712 (Tri- Chan.)]-2019-VIL-299-CESTAT-CHD-ST. the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal also similarly held that the 'transfer of development right' is immovable property in terms of section 3(26) of General Clauses Act, 1897, and hence no service tax is payable as per the exclusion clause in terms of Section 65(B)(44) of the Act. The relevant para is as under:-
"10. We further find that in this case, when the land- owning company transfers land development rights to the developers, the developers gets the right to not only to develop project on such land but also the right to sell such developed property along with undivided interest in the land underneath and to receive payments for such transfers from the buyers. Once the land-owning companies transfers the land development rights to developer for a consideration, it is obligated to transfer the undivided interest in the land in favour of developer's buyers for which no separate consideration is paid for it. In other words, such transfer of undivided interest in the land by the land-owning company is in return of the initial consideration paid by the developer to it for transfer of land development rights only. Thus, it is the ownership of the land, which stands transferred effectively by the land-owning company in return of consideration payable by the developers. The moment it is either land or "benefits arise out of land", it goes outside the purview of "Service" as defined in Section 658(44) of Finance Act, 1994. Under the Development Agreement dated 5-12-2006, it is stated that there would be transfer of Development Rights in future and the Developer were permitted to carry out the developmental activities as per clause 2.2 of the Development Agreement, wherein the developer is permitted to enter the scheduled property for carrying out developmental activities. After the developmental activities have been carried out, sale deed is executed among the three parties namely Landowner, Developer and the Purchaser under which the title to the undivided portion of the land is transferred to the various vendees/purchasers from time to time as and when the Conveyance Deed/Sale Deed is executed in future. We further observe that it is not only the possession, which stood transferred with the right to use, enjoy and construct building/super structure, but, at the same time, undivided right, title and interest in the land also stand transferred under the Deed of Conveyance on which stamp duty has been paid and the Deed of Conveyance has been registered before the Sub- Registrar."
9. Thereafter, referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Bahadur & Ors. versus Sikandar & Ors., Bombay 11 ST/50236 & Ors.
High Court in Sadoday Builders. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Others [2011(6) TMI 936 - Bombay High Court and Chheda Housing Development Corporation (supra), where transferable development right has been held to be immovable property, the Chandigarh Bench observed that the transfer of development rights in the case in hand is termed as 'immovable property and no service tax is payable as per the exclusion clause in terms of Section 65(B) (44)(a)(i) of the Act."
7. Learned Authorized Representative has distinguished the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is no longer res-integra as the earlier decisions are distinguishable on facts. He submitted that in the case of DLF Commercial Projects Corporation there were three parties, the land owning companies, M/s DLF Commercial Project Corporation and M/s DLF Limited and the show cause notice was issued to DLF Commercial Projects Corporation who was not the land owning company who could transfer the land development rights whereas in the present case, the show cause notice demanding service tax on transfer of land development rights was issued to the land owning companies, the appellants herein. We do not find force in the arguments of the learned Authorized Representative for the simple reason that the show cause notice itself speaks of M/s Omax Limited having been engaged in providing real estate business (developer) who were developing and marketing these projects. Further, Para 7 of the show cause notice states that from the foregoing, it appears that the transfer of land rights, as brought out in the preceeding paragraphs included right to develop and/or construct and market the project for a consideration. The analogy drawn by the department that in the case of DLF there were three parties whereas in the present case there are only two does not really after the position or effect the applicability of the principles of law laid down in the 12 ST/50236 & Ors.
earlier decisions. What is required to be ascertained the basic principles enunciated in the decisions, i.e. land development rights does not fall within the ambit of service tax. The objection raised by the revenue is unsustainable.
8. Following the earlier decisions, we hold that the impugned order needs to be set-aside and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the entire batch of 16 appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th November 2025.) (BINU TAMTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) G.Y.