Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jamshedpur Utilities & Services ... vs Jamshedpur on 11 November, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Service Tax Appeal No. 76674 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 11/S.Tax/Commr/2016 dated 30.06.2016 passed
by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Outer Circle Road, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur - 831 001)
M/s. Tata Steel Utilities & Infrastructure Services Ltd. : Appellant
Sakchi, Boulevard Road, Northern Town,
Jamshedpur - 831 001
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax : Respondent
Outer Circle Road, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur - 831 001
AND
Service Tax Appeal No. 76809 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/S.Tax/Commr./2019 dated 28.03.2019, Outer
Circle Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur - 831 001)
M/s. Tata Steel Utilities & Infrastructure Services Ltd. : Appellant
Sakchi, Boulevard Road, Northern Town,
Jamshedpur - 831 001
VERSUS
Commissioner of C.G.S.T. and Central Excise : Respondent
Outer Circle Road, Bistupur,
Jamshedpur - 831 001
APPEARANCE:
S/Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Senior Advocate,
Shri Rahul Tangri, Advocate
Shri Deepro Sen, Advocate
Shri Shovit Betal, Advocate
For the Appellant
Shri P.K. Ghosh, Authorized Representative
For the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 77557-77558 / 2024
DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 11.11.2024
Page 2 of 18
Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB
& ST/76809/2019-DB
ORDER:[PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN] Service Tax Appeal No. 76674 of 2016 has been filed against Order-in-Original no. 11/S.Tax/Commr/2016 dated 30.06.2016, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax of 6,86,23,419/- for the period from October 2009 to September 2014, along with interest and equal amount of tax confirmed, as penalty.
Service Tax Appeal No. 76809 of 2019 has been filed against Order-in-Original no. 3/S.Tax/Commr/2016 dated 28.03.2019, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax of 2,96,24,436/- for the period from October 2014 to March 2017, along with interest and equal amount of tax confirmed, as penalty.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is an urban infrastructure service provider and is engaged in providing various services to the township of Jamshedpur, relating to water, power, infrastructure, public health and horticulture service. The Appellant had entered into an agreement with effect from 01.04.2007 with M/s Tata Steel Ltd. ('TSL'), whereby the Appellant is required to provide services in relation to cleaning, maintaining, repairing, services, removing, altering, painting and renovation of building and properties of TSL located in Jamshedpur. To provide said services of repair, renovations etc., the Appellant had procured goods like pipes, steel items, cement, bricks and discharged Page 3 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB VAT liability on the goods under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act.
2.1. During the period 2009-10 (up to 30.06.2012), the Appellant classified the services provided vide the aforesaid agreement as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services' ('CICS') and claimed abatement in terms of Sl. No. 10 of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Thereafter, with effect from 01.07.2012, the Appellant classified the services in question as 'Works Contract' Service and accordingly was discharging service tax on abated gross value in terms of Rule 2A(ii)(c) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 ('Valuation rules').
2.2. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2015 was issued by Commissioner (Audit) Central Excise and Service Tax, Patna, proposing a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 7,04,16,978/- for the period October 2009 to September 2014. The SCN alleged that the services provided by the Appellant upto 30.06.2012 was classifiable under 'management, maintenance or repair Service' and not under CICS, as classified by the Appellant. With respect to the period post 01.07.2012, it was alleged that the classification of the subject transaction as 'works contract', is incorrect inasmuch as the Appellant failed to submit any documentary evidence to substantiate discharge of VAT on the value of goods involved in the execution of goods.
2.3. The above Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2015 was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax vide Order-in Original No. 11/S.Tax/Comr/2016 dated 30.06.2016 wherein Page 4 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB service tax amounting to Rs 6,86,23,419/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Vide the impugned order, it was inter-alia held as following:
- For the period October 2009 to June 2012 (Pre-Negative list) - Services rendered by the Appellant qualifies as 'management, maintenance or repair' services only and thus the Appellant had mis-classified the taxable service and wrongly claimed abatement under Notification No. 01/2006-ST.
- For the period July 2012 to September 2014 (Post- Negative list) - As per documentary evidence submitted by the Appellant (Annexure-8 of the reply to SCN submitted vide letter dated 04.11.2015) it was held that the service in question qualifies as 'Works Contract Service'. It was observed that since the Appellant is able to determine the amount of value of goods supplied and had discharged VAT on the same, therefore the valuation of said taxable service under Rule 2A(ii)(c) of the Valuation Rules is incorrect and the said services ought to be valued under Rule 2(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules.
2.4. With respect to the period post 01.07.2012, a Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2017 was issued upon the Appellant proposing to demand Service Tax of Rs. 2,96,24,436/- under Section 73(1A) of the Finance Act along with applicable interest and equivalent penalty. The said Show Cause Notice was based on the allegations mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2015 pertaining to prior period. In this periodical SCN, it was alleged that the Appellant Page 5 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB had misclassified the underlying transaction as works contract service and thus, wrongly claimed abatement of service tax under Rule 2A(ii)(c) of the Valuation Rules.
2.5. The Ld. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 03/S.Tax/Commr./2019 dated 28.03.2019 held that the service rendered by the Appellant is classifiable as Works Contract Service. It was held that the valuation of said taxable service under Rule 2A(ii)(c) of the Valuation Rules is incorrect and the said services ought to be valued under Rule 2(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules. Accordingly, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned orders dated 30.06.2016 and 28.03.2019, the present appeals have been filed by the Appellant.
4. The Appellant submits that service tax demand for the period October 2009 to June 2012 is not sustainable inasmuch as the demand has been raised under the category of 'management maintenance or repair 'service; However, they submit that it is a fact on record that the subject contracts entered between the Appellant and TSL, is a composite contract for civil maintenance and repair, which includes supply of goods for undertaking such repair services.
4.1. The Appellant submits that w.e.f. 01.06.2007, service portion of composite works contract was levied to service tax only in respect of the following five categories of contracts as mentioned under definition of 'works contract 'under Explanation to clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994:Page 6 of 18
Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB • contracts relating to erection and commissioning of plant and equipment;
• construction of immovable property and civil structures • construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof • turnkey projects; and • repair, alteration, renovation, restoration etc only for immovable property, civil structures and residential complex.
4.2. They submit that for the remaining, all the categories of services entailed service simpliciter contracts; since the subject contracts are clearly composite contracts and not pure service contract, therefore service tax demand under the category of 'management maintenance or repair 'service is not sustainable.
4.3. Reliance in this regard is placed by the appellant on the decision of Gainwell Commosales Pvt. Ltd. v.
CCE & ST, Ranchi [2023 (6) TMI 1308- CESTAT Kolkata], wherein the Tribunal, Kolkata has held that if a contract involves supply of goods as well services prior to 01.07.2012, then such composite contract cannot be classified under 'management maintenance or repair 'service. It has been held that such contracts would more appropriately be classifiable under 'works contact service' and thus, demand under 'management maintenance or repair 'service was set Page 7 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB aside. It is also submitted that similar propositions have been upheld in the following judgments:
• Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi v. Xerox India Ltd. [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 96 (Tri. - Chan.)] • BSBK P Ltd. v. Commissioner [2020 (12) TMI 1015
- CESTAT New Delhi] • G.E. Power India Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise, New Delhi [2021 (2) TMI 116- New Delhi] • SEW Infrastructure Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2023 (5) TMI 764- CESTAT New Delhi] 4.4. The appellant referred to paragraph 3.0 of the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner wherein he has observed that the underlying agreement qualifies as 'works contract', on the basis VAT returns, furnished by the appellant; it is submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has discharged VAT to the extent there has been transfer of property in goods which has been recorded in the impugned order and thus, such composite contract cannot be classified as a pure service contract for the purpose of levy of service tax under the category of 'management maintenance or repair 'service'.
4.5. Accordingly, the appellant submits that service tax demand confirmed in the impugned order under the category of management, maintenance or repair service, for the period from October 2009 to June 2012, is liable to be set aside.
5. In respect of the demand of service tax confirmed for the period from July 2012 to September 2014 in Appeal No. ST/76674/2016 and the demand Page 8 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB of service tax confirmed for the period from October 2014 to March 2017 in Appeal No. ST/78809/2019, the appellant submits that in the impugned orders, it has been held by the Ld. Commissioner that for the period post July 2012, the underlying agreements qualifies as 'works contract services' but the valuation adopted by the Appellant in terms of Rule 2(A)(ii) of Service Tax Valuation Rules is incorrect since the Appellant is able to determine the value of VAT payable; hence, it has been alleged that the Appellant ought to have adopted Rule 2(A)(i), for determination of value of services. In this regard, the appellant submits that the above finding given by the Ld. Commissioner travels beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2015 issued for the period up to September 2014, inasmuch as the said Notice only alleged that the service being rendered by the subject agreement cannot be construed as 'works contract' in the absence of any supporting evidence that VAT had been discharged on the instant transaction. It is reiterated that the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order has accepted the fact that VAT has been discharged by the Appellant, but nowhere in the Show Cause Notice was there any allegation or proposal with respect to the valuation of such services under Rule 2(A) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules. Therefore, they contend that once the allegation in the Show Cause Notice regarding the classification of the services in question has been decided, the Ld. Commissioner cannot travel beyond the proposals in the Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2015 and confirm the demand; It is a settled principle of law and has been held in a number of decisions that when an order goes beyond the allegations mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, such Page 9 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB order is violative of the principles of natural justice.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following decisions:
• Commissioner of C.Ex. Vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. [2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC)] • Navneet R. Jhanwar Vs. State Tax Officer [2021 (47) GSTL 337 (J &K)] • M/s. Guru Shipping & Clearing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata [2023 (9) TMI 572- CESTAT Kolkata];
• Jai Balaji Industries v. Commissioner of CE, Bolpur [2023 (5) TMI 652- CESTAT Kolkata];
• Syndicate Bank v. Commissioner Central Excise, Mangalore [2022 (58) GSTL 440 (Tri-Bang.)] • ABM Knowledge Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III [2019 (27) GSTL 694 (Tri- Mumbai)] • Philips Electronics (India) Limited Vs. CCE & ST - Vadodara-I (Vice Versa) [2019 (6) TMI 361-CESTAT Ahmedabad] 5.1. It is the contention of the appellant in this regard that since the Ld. Commissioner has held that subject contract is classifiable as 'works contract', therefore demand for the period July 2012 to March 2017 ought to have been set aside on this ground alone; Confirmation of demand on the ground of valuation of such agreement is clearly beyond the scope of SCN and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5.2. Regarding the valuation adopted by them, the appellant submits that they have correctly valued the works contract service under Rule 2A(ii); As per the agreement between the Appellant and TSL, the Page 10 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB Appellant is required to raise its invoice for the composite service at the beginning of each month based on agreed contract value and hence, material requirements and details of such procurement is not known to the Appellant at the time of raising of invoice. Consequently, it is contended that it is impractical to compute service portion of the contract in terms of Rule 2(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules since value of goods used toward rendering of services is not known at the time raising of invoice. In view of the above, the appellant submits that they have correctly opted for Rule 2(A)(ii) to discharge service tax on service portion of the works contract.
5.3. It is also pointed out that as per the impugned order, an assessee can opt for Rule 2(A)(ii) only if the assessee is unable to determine the value under Rule 2(A)(i). In this regard, the appellant submits that Rule 2A provides two methods of valuing the works contract service and entails a right upon the assessee to choose any method of valuation of works contract since the provision uses the phrase 'where the value has not been....'. Thus, it is submitted that it is at the discretion of the Appellant to choose the method valuation as per their contract and convenience; since the Appellant had not entered into the contract with intention of valuing the service and material elements separately, the appellant has chosen to determine the value of goods under Rule 2(A)(ii), as it provides for a simplified and specific method of computation. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the demand confirmed in this order on account of valuation of works contract is not sustainable.
Page 11 of 18Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB
6. It is further submitted that the present demand is based on the information obtained from ST-3 returns and other documents submitted by the Appellant; in the absence of any suppression of facts, extended period of limitation is not invokable. Reliance is placed on the decision of Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Commissioner of CE, Bombay [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.)]. Further, the issue involves is interpretation of valuation of works contract vis-à-vis composite contracts and hence, the appellant contends that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case.
7. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned orders. Regarding valuation of 'works contract service', the Ld. Departmental Representative submits that the appellant has been paying VAT on the value of materials supplied and thus, the material value is known to the appellant. Accordingly, he argued that Rule 2A(i) is the right method for determining the valuation of the works contract service.
8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents.
9. We observe that the Appellant has entered into a contract with M/s. Tata Steels Ltd (TSL) and as per the contract, they were required to provide services in relation to cleaning, maintaining, repairing, services, removing, altering, painting and renovation of building and properties of TSL located in Jamshedpur. To provide said services of repair, renovations etc., the Appellant had procured goods like pipes, steel items, cement, bricks and discharged VAT liability on the goods under the Jharkhand Value Page 12 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB Added Tax Act. During the period from 2009-10, up to 30.06.2012, the Appellant classified the services provided under the aforesaid agreement as 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services (CICS) and claimed abatement in terms of Sl. No. 10 of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Thereafter, with effect from 01.07.2012, the Appellant classified the services in question as 'Works Contract ' Service and accordingly was discharging service tax. For the period post 01.07.2012, it has been alleged that the classification of the subject transaction as 'works contract' is incorrect inasmuch as the Appellant failed to submit any documentary evidence to substantiate discharge of VAT on the value of goods involved in the execution of goods. For the period post July 2012, even when the adjudicating authority accepted that the underlying agreements qualifies as 'works contract services', he has held that the valuation adopted by the Appellant in terms of Rule 2(A)(ii) of Service Tax Valuation Rules is incorrect since the Appellant is able to determine the value of VAT payable. Accordingly, it was held that the Appellant ought to have adopted Rule 2(A)(i), for determination of value of services.
8.1. Regarding classification of the service for the period prior to 30.06.2012, we observe that the subject contracts entered between the Appellant and TSL, are in the nature of composite contract for civil maintenance and repair, which includes supply of goods for undertaking such repair services. We observe that for the period prior to 30.06.2012, the service portion of composite works contract was levied to service tax only in respect of the following five categories of contracts as mentioned under definition Page 13 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB of 'works contract 'under Explanation to clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994:
• contracts relating to erection and commissioning of plant and equipment;
• construction of immovable property and civil structures • construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof • turnkey projects; and • repair, alteration, renovation, restoration, etc., only for immovable property, civil structures and residential complex.
8.2. Since the subject contracts are clearly composite contracts and not pure service contract, therefore, we hold that service tax demand under the category of 'management maintenance or repair ' service is not sustainable.
8.3. In this regard, we place our reliance on the decision in the case of Gainwell Commosales Pvt. Ltd.
v. CCE & ST, Ranchi [2023 (6) TMI 1308- (CESTAT Kolkata)], wherein this Tribunal has held that if a contract involves supply of goods as well services prior to 01.07.2012, then such composite contract cannot be classified under management maintenance or repair 'service. It has been held that such contracts would more appropriately be classifiable under works contact service and thus, demand under management maintenance or repair 'service was set aside.
Page 14 of 18Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB 8.4. Thus, by relying on the decision cited above, we hold that the demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order for the period prior to 30.06.2012 under the category of 'management maintenance or repair' service is not sustainable. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant has rightly classified the said service under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS) and claimed abatement in terms of Sl. No. 10 of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006.
9. Regarding the demand of service tax confirmed for the period from period from July 2012 to September 2014 in Appeal No. ST/76674/2016 and demand of service tax confirmed for the period from October 2014 to March 2017 in Appeal No. ST/78809/2019, in the impugned orders, we observe that it has been held by the Ld. Commissioner that for the period post July 2012, the underlying agreements qualifies as works contract services. However, in the impugned order the classification of the subject transaction as 'works contract' has been held as incorrect inasmuch as the Appellant failed to submit any documentary evidence to substantiate discharge of VAT on the value of goods involved in the execution of goods. We observe that after accepting the classification of the service as 'work contract service' the Ld. Adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on a totally different ground which was not there in the Show Cause Notice dated 22.04.2015. Thus, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and confirmed the demand on a ground which is not raised in the Notice. We observe that nowhere in the Show Cause Notice was there any allegation or Page 15 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB proposal with respect to the valuation of such services under Rule 2(A) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules. Once the allegation in the Show Cause Notice regarding the classification of the services in question has been decided, the Ld. Commissioner cannot travel beyond the proposals in the Show Cause Notice and confirm the demand. It is a settled principle of law and has been held in a number of decisions that when an order goes beyond the allegations mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, such order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we hold that the demand confirmed post June 2012, up to September 2014, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
9.1. Regarding merit of the valuation of works contract raised by the Ld. Adjudicating authority, we observe that the Ld. Adjudicating authority has held that the Appellant is able to determine the amount of value of goods supplied and had discharged VAT on the same. Accordingly, the impugned orders concluded that the valuation of said taxable service done by the appellant under Rule 2A(ii)(c) of the Valuation Rules is incorrect and the said services ought to have been valued under Rule 2(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules. Regarding the method of valuation adopted by the Appellant, we observe that as per the agreement between the Appellant and TSL, the Appellant is required to raise its invoice for the composite service at the beginning of each month based on agreed contract value. Hence, material requirements and details of such procurement is not known to the Appellant at the time of raising of invoice. Consequently, it is impractical to compute service portion of the contract in terms of Rule 2(A)(i) Page 16 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB of the Valuation Rules since value of goods used toward rendering of services is not known at the time raising the invoice. In view of the above, we hold that valuation cannot be done as per Rule 2A(i) of the Valuation Rules.
9.2. In the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has observed that an assessee can opt for Rule 2(A)(ii) only if the assessee is unable to determine the value under Rule 2(A)(i). In this regard, we observe that Rule 2A provides two methods of valuing the works contract service and entails a right upon the assessee to choose any method of valuation of works contract. Thus, it is at the discretion of the Appellant to choose the method of valuation as per their contract and convenience. Since the Appellant had not entered into the contract with intention of valuing the service and material elements separately, hence, the Appellant chose to determine value of goods under Rule 2(A)(ii), as it provides for a simplified and specific method of computation. Further, we observe that the appellant has categorically submitted that the value of material used was not known to them at the beginning of the month and hence the appellant cannot avail the method of valuation as envisaged in Rule 2(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules. Thus, we hold that the method of valuation adopted by the appellant as per rule 2(A)(ii) is in order. Accordingly, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order on account of valuation of works contract by adopting Rule 2(A(i) of the Valuation Rules, is not sustainable.
9.3. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties in the impugned orders does not arise. Accordingly, we set aside the same.
Page 17 of 18Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB
10. Regarding the issue of limitation raised by the appellant, we find that the present demands have been raised based on the information obtained from ST-3 returns and other documents submitted by the Appellant. In this case, we also observe that the Department has failed to bring in any evidence to allege suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax. In the absence of any suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, we hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable. Accordingly, we hold that the demand confirmed for the extended period is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation.
11. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following order.
(i) We hold that the demand of service tax confirmed under the category of management, maintenance or repair Service' for the period prior to 30.06.2012, is not sustainable. We hold that the services rendered by the appellant for the period from 2009-10 up to 30.06.2012 is rightly classifiable under the category of 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Service' (CICS), as classified by the appellant and the appellant are eligible for the abatement in terms of Sl. No. 10 of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006.
(ii) For the period post 01.07.2012, we hold that the service rendered by the appellant is rightly classifiable as 'works contract service'. The demand of service tax confirmed in the impugned order by adopting Rule 2(A)(i) of the Valuation Rules is not sustainable and hence we set aside the same. We hold that the appellant Page 18 of 18 Appeal No(s).: ST/76674/2016-DB & ST/76809/2019-DB has correctly opted for Rule 2(A)(ii) of Valuation Rules to discharge service tax on the works contract services rendered by them.
(iii) The demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable.
(iv) No penalty is imposable on the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) Sd/-
(ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/-
(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sdd