Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ups Jetair Express Pvt Ltd vs Cce Mumbai - Ii on 16 November, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT No. I
APPEAL No. ST/85793/2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 5/ST/RN/CMR/MII/13-14
dated 29.11.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise,
Mumbai-II)
UPS Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.S. Nankani, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Prithviraj Choudhary,
Advocate and Shri Parag Chavan, C.A., for appellant
Shri K.M. Mondal, Spl. Counsel, for respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing: 28.6.2018
Date of Decision: 16.11.2018
ORDER No. A/87929/2018
Per: Sanjiv Srivastava
The appeal is directed against the order of
Commissioner Central Excise Mumbai -II dated
29.11.2013 holding as follows:
"57. a) I confirm the demand of Service Tax (including
education cess and higher education cess) under SCN F
No V/ST/HQ/AE/E/145/12 dated 23.10.2012 to the
extent of Rs 67, 89,17,207/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Crores
Eighty Nine Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred
2 ST/85793/2014
and Seven Only) under "Courier Service" as defined
under Sec 65 (105) (f) read with Sec 65 (33) of the
Finance Act, 1994 during the Financial Year 2008-09 to
2011-12, and order for recovery of the same from M/s
UPS Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd., under the proviso to
subsection (1) of section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read
with section 68 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Service Tax
Rules, 1994 as amended.
b) Interest on the amount of demand determined at
'(a)' at the appropriate rate should be paid by M/s UPS
Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd., under Section 75 of the Act;
c) I impose Penalty of Rs 67, 89,17,207/- (Rupees
Sixty Seven Crores Eighty Nine Lakhs Seventeen
Thousand Two Hundred and Seven Only) under Section
78 of the Act on M/s UPS Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd.
d) I impose Penalty of Rs 5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act,
1994 as amended.
e) Since penalty is imposed under Section 78 as
above, I do not impose separate penalty under section 76
of the Finance Act, 1994.
f) The remaining demand of Rs 309,61,15,563/- (Rs
377,50,32,770/- - Rs 67,89,17,207/-) raised in SCN F No
V/ST/HQ/AE/E/145/12 dated 23.10.2012 is dropped."
2.1 Appellants are engaged in rendering services
falling under "Courier Service", as defined under Section
3 ST/85793/2014
65 (105) (f) read with Section 65 (33) of Chapter V of the
Finance Act, 1994 and "Intellectual Property Services" as
defined under Section 65 (105) (zzr) read with Section
65 (55a) and Section 65 (55b) of Chapter V of the
Finance Act, 1994.
2.2 For export consignments they have appointed
contractor i.e. M/s Transmodal, etc., to pick up the
consignment from the door steps of consignor and
deliver the same to their hubs. After segregating and
consolidating the consignments and the documents,
they hand it over to M/s UPS Worldwide Forwarding
Inc, a foreign Company who undertakes the delivery of
consignments right from picking up the export
consignments at International Airports for delivering the
same to the foreign consignee at its doorsteps across the
world, with the help of a local UPS Courier Companies.
For this appellants pay an agreed sum as consideration
to M/s UPS Worldwide Forwarding Inc. In respect of
such export consignments, there are two modes of
payment available, i.e. payment by the consignor
(freight paid) and payment by the consignee (freight
collect). In respect of the "Freight Paid" consignments
appellants discharge the service tax liability and in
respect of the "freight collect" consignments they claim
exemption from payment of service tax, treating the
services provided under "Export of Service Rules, 2005".
4 ST/85793/2014
2.3 In respect of import consignments M/s UPS
Worldwide Forwarding Inc, handover the import
consignments to the Appellant at the International
Airport, in India. The Appellants with the help of other
courier companies deliver the said import consignments
to the Indian consignee. In this case also there are two
modes of payment available i.e. payment by the foreign
consignor (freight paid) and payment by the Indian
consignee (freight collect). In respect of the "freight
collect" consignments Appellants pay the Service Tax
due, and remits the amount collected from the Indian
Consignee M/s UPS Worldwide Forwarding Inc. In
respect of the "freight paid" consignments M/s UPS
Worldwide Forwarding Inc pays consideration to the
assessee in foreign currency for the services rendered by
the assessee in India. In respect of such consignments
they claim exemption under "Export of Service Rules,
2005" on such consideration received in foreign
exchange.
2.4 Since appellant have deliberately failed to pay
Service Tax in relation in respect of taxable service of
"Courier Services" provided by them, as well as received
by them as import of service on the gross value within
the prescribed time and also disclose the details of such
services provided and received by them in their ST-3
return, a show cause notice invoking extended period of
5 ST/85793/2014
limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act,
1994 demanding service tax as follows:
S Reason for Taxable Value Service Tax
No Demand
1 Import of 1855,32,64,268 204,38,33,700
Service in case
where UPS
World
Forwarding Inc
has rendered
service to
assessee partly
in India as well
as partly
outside India
2 Export of 148,01,93,210 16,36,35,552
service in case
of import of
consignments
where assessee
has rendered its
service in India
only.
3 Export of 1430,51,57,299 156,75,63,518
Service in case
export of
consignments,
where assessee
has rendered its
services in India
for foreign
companies.
4 Total 3433,86,14,777 377,50,32,770
2.5 Commissioner has adjudicated the case as per
order referred in para 1 above. Aggrieved by the order,
appellants have preferred this appeal before Tribunal.
3.1 Shri V S Nankani, Sr Advocate, appeared on
behalf of the Appellant and Shri K M Mondal Special
Counsel appeared for the revenue.
6 ST/85793/2014
3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Sr Counsel
submitted:
i. That for the person to be classified as "Courier
agency" as defined in section 65(33), the service
provider must satisfy following conditions:-
a. It must be engaged in door to door
transportation of time sensitive documents/
goods;
b. For such door to door transportation, the
service provider can utilize, directly or
indirectly, the services of another person to
carry the documents/ goods.
ii. The word "engaged in" means that the service
provider must have privity of contract with the
person who agrees to pay the freight in
consideration of service provider's undertaking to
fulfill all the three legs involved in transportation
from one door to another. Thus privity of contract
with the recipient and the payment of freight is
twin test which must be satisfied, for the services
to qualify as 'courier service'.
iii. The definition, therefore, presupposes that person
who is engaged in the door to door transportation
is different from the person whose services utilized
to carry/ transport the documents. There is no
limitation on the number of intermediate persons
whose services are utilized to carry/ transport the
7 ST/85793/2014
documents by the person who is engaged in the
door to door transportation.
iv. The phrase "engaged in door to door
transportation" refers to, covers and means the
person who undertakes contractual obligation or
responsibility to perform all the "three legs" of the
service of the services- pick up, transportation and
delivery and in consideration collects or receive
freight.
v. Any person who performs only one of these legs
three functions renders either the service of
transportation or business support.
vi. The scheme of operations in the case of appellant
can be depicted as per the chart below:
Indi Outside India
a
UPS India (A) UPS Airline (B) UPS Foreign Entity
(C)
Deliver Pick
y Up
Receives Foreign
Exchange from Client (Y)
UPS Airline but
no contract with X
or Y
4th Case: Service tax Paid
on entire freight amount
(No demand) Delivers
parcel & Collects Freight
from (X)
Client (X):
(A) contracts with (X) and
collects freight from (X).
Service Tax paid on entire
freight amount.
(A) Forwards the Shipment
outside India.
8 ST/85793/2014
vii. Three type of transactions which are the subject
matter of the present appeal are as indicated in
the table below:
Type of Party's to Demand Catego Categor Reason for Amou
Contrac Contract on ry of y nonpayment nt in
t for Door Service claimed of Service Rs
to Door for by Tax Crore
delivery deman Appella
d nt
Export UPS Service by Courie Transpo Exemption 45.65
Prepaid India UPS r rt of from
and World Service Goods payment of
Indian wide to by Air service tax
Consigno UPS India on transport
r of export
cargo
Import UPS Last mile Courie Busines
Export of 12.29
Prepaid Foreign delivery r sservice as
Entity Service Service Support
service
and provided Service
recipient
Foreign by UPS located
Consigno India to outside
r UPS India and
worldwide consideratio
n received in
Export UPS First mile Courie Busines foreign 9.95
Freight Foreign Pickup r s currency
Collect Entity Service Service Support
and provided Service
Foreign by UPS
Consigno India to
r UPS
worldwide
Import UPS No Demand
Freight India
Collect and
Indian
Consigne
e
viii. Thus it is evident that where so ever appellants
have entered into contract to provide services of
door to door delivery they have paid the service tax
9 ST/85793/2014
on entire amount of freight collected. (Case of
Export Prepaid and Import Collect)
ix. Only the person who is engaged in providing the
door to door delivery of goods/ documents can be
levied to service tax under the category of Courier
Agent. In the case of export prepaid they being the
courier agent have paid the service tax on the
entire freight collected by them. In this case the
input services received by them cannot be
classified as Courier Agent, as the service provider
i.e. UPS Air renders the service of Air
transportation, which at the relevant time was
exempt from payment of service tax. Hence
demand of Rs 45.65 Crore made by classifying the
services under category of Courier Agent is not
sustainable.
x. Even if the service provided by UPS Air is held to
be courier agent service, no part of service is
rendered in India. The fact that the parcels are
screened in India before loading into aircraft as
per the circular of Director General Civil Aviation
will not imply that UPS Air is performing part of
services in India. For this reason the demand on
reverse charge basis from the Appellant on the
input services provided by UPS Air is
unsustainable.
10 ST/85793/2014
xi. In other two cases namely Import Prepaid and
Export Collect appellant is performing the part of
service. In case of Import Prepaid, appellants
collect the consignment from the airport in India
and delivers to consignee and in case of export
collect appellant picks up the consignment from
the consignor in India and delivers to the Airport
in India.
xii. In these two transactions, they do not receive any
consideration from the consignor or consignee in
India. They receive consideration for performing
this service from UPS Air. Therefore the services
provided by the appellant cannot be classified as
courier service.
xiii. Appellants while providing the services of delivery
and pick up uses the services of a local
transporter "Transmodal" in this case. The
services provided by "Transmodal" are not being
classified as courier agency, even when the nature
of services provided by Transmodal and UPS Air
are similar in nature, except that former
transports by road and later by Air.
xiv. Demand is barred by limitation. Audit was
conducted by the department in February 2010 for
the period 2005-09, when they had vide letter
dated 8th February 2010 submitted all financials
and details of transaction undertaken by them.
11 ST/85793/2014
The facts were completely in the knowledge of
department as is evident from Final Audit Report
dated 10th May 2010, wherein audit has recorded
that Appellants were maintaining separate records
for exports though the same was not reflected in
the ST-3 returns and took no objection.
xv. He also relied on decision of Ahmedabad bench in
case of M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd [2008-TIOL-
979-CESTAT-AHM] and Bombay High Court in
case of Mahindra & Mahindra [2018 (11) GSTL
126 (BOM)] and various circulars in his support.
3.3 Arguing on the behalf of revenue learned special
counsel submitted:-
i. Entire activities are performed by three
participants namely UPS Jet Air, UPS Worldwide
and UPS Foreign Entity, who are entities of the
Courier Agency. From the definition of "Courier
Agency" it is quite evident that a courier agent can
utilize the services of any other person directly or
indirectly to carry such time sensitive documents,
goods or articles. It is not material whether the
whole activity is performed by one person or three
persons as above. This will not change the
essential character of the service.
ii. In case of Vijayanand Roadlines [2006 (1) STR 113
(T)] it was held that door to door transportation
cannot be given restricted meaning. Even the
12 ST/85793/2014
customer can come to the courier agent's office.
This decision has been upheld in [2006 (4) STR J
115 (SC)]
iii. Courier Service has essentially three components
namely pickup, transportation and delivery.
Courier Service is not fully performed till the
delivery of goods/ documents to the consignee.
Transportation is essentially a part of the courier
service.
iv. UPS Jetair has utilized the transport services
provided by UPS Worldwide as per the
International Transportation Services Agreement
dated 30/10/2010. This does not imply that UPS
Worldwide has provided "Transport of Goods by air
Service"
v. Courier Service is a composite service of which
transportation is an essential part. Thus is an
input service for providing the Courier Service and
has essential character of Courier Service. By
application of Section 65A(2)(b), and Boards
Circular No 344/4/2006-TRU dated 28.02.2006
and 334/1/2008-TRU dated 29.02.2008, the
classification of said service is to be done
according to principal service i.e. Courier Service.
vi. Reliance placed by the Sr Counsel on the
International Transportation Services Agreement
dated 30/10/2010, to claim the classification of
13 ST/85793/2014
services provided by UPS Air as "Transport of
Goods by Air Service" is not correct. From the
preamble to the agreement it is quite evident6 that
both UPS Worldwide and UPS Jet Air were
engaged in the export and import or freight
forwarding of express documents/ parcels and
shipments. They in fact were providing "Express
Cargo Service" which as per the circular No
96/7/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 is covered by
Courier Agency Service. Thus the services
provided by the UPS Worldwide will also qualify as
courier service. He relied on the decision of apex
Court in case of Grasim Industries Ltd [2002 (141)
ELT 593 (SC)] to argue that the definition of
Courier Agency should be read as whole and if
read as whole the classification of the services
provided by UPS Worldwide will be only in the
category of courier agency services.
vii. In the present case UPS Jetair sub contracted a
part of its work to UPS Worldwide who undertook
the activity of collecting the parcel from UPS Jet
Air at the Indian Airport, loading it in the Aircraft
by booking space, air transport from Indian
territory to foreign territory and delivery to the
consignee. As per the Circular No 96/7/2007-ST
dated 23/08/2007, sub contractor is also liable to
pay service tax. Part of the services provided by
14 ST/85793/2014
UPS Worldwide was provided in India and part
outside India. UPS Worldwide is foreign company
having no branch office or agent in India.
Therefore UPS Jetair (appellant) was required to
pay service tax on the gross value of such
provision of service under reverse charge
mechanism in terms of Section 66A of Finance
Act, 1994 read with rule 3(ii) of Taxation of
Services (Provided from Outside India and
Received in India) Rules, 2006.
viii. In case of import, appellants collect the parcel
from Indian airport and deliver the same to
doorsteps of Indian Consignee with the help of
another company like M/s Transmodal. For
providing such services, they receive consideration
from in convertible foreign exchange from UPS
Worldwide.
ix. In case of export "Freight Collect" basis,
appellant's pickup the parcel from the doorstep of
the Indian Consignor and thereafter transports
and handover the same to UPS Worldwide at
International Airport in India. The parcel is
thereafter transported and delivered to the foreign
consignee by the UPS Worldwide, who collect the
freight from the consignee. In such cases also
Appellants receive consideration from in
convertible foreign exchange from UPS Worldwide.
15 ST/85793/2014
x. Appellants have claimed exemption from payment
of service tax in both the above cases, claiming the
services provided to be export of service. As per
Rule 3(1) (ii) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005,
to claim such exemption, services are required to
be performed in India as well as outside India.
Since none part of service is provided outside
India the exemption claimed is not available to
them.
xi. Party has vide their letter dated 15.11.2013,
themselves given the taxable value of services
provided by them. The demand of service tax has
been worked out on the basis of the said value of
taxable services provided by them. Hence there is
no error in quantification of the demand.
xii. The claim of appellant, that after the audit
conducted in February 2010, all facts were
brought to the knowledge of department, hence
invoking extended period of limitation is not
correct, cannot be justified because the audit was
limited mainly to wrong availment of CENVAT
Credit. Appellants had never disclosed the nature
of transactions between themselves and UPS
Worldwide/ UPS Foreign Entity. Also they did not
disclose the gross value of taxable courier services
provided and received by them in ST-3 returns.
Thus relying on the decisions of in case of Star
16 ST/85793/2014
India Pvt Ltd [2015 (38) STR 884 (T)], Tigrania
Metal & Steel Industries [2001 (132) ELT 103 (T)]
& Steel Industries Kerala Ltd. [2005 (188) ELT 33
(T)] the invoking extended period is justified in the
present case.
4.0 We have considered the submissions made by
both the sides. The issue is in respect of determining
the scope of the courier agency services as defined by
Section 65(33) the Finance Act, 1994. For ease of
reference the said definitions are reproduced below:
""Courier agency" means any person engaged in the door
to door transportation of time sensitive documents, goods
or articles utilizing the services of a person, either directly
or indirectly, to carry or accompany such documents
goods or articles.
Taxable service has been defined by Section 65 (105) (f)
of the Finance Act, 1994 as follows:
"Taxable Service" means any service provided or to be
provided to any person by a courier agency in relation to
door to door transportation of time sensitive documents,
goods or articles."
5.0 From the reading of the said definition, it is quite
evident, that courier agency refers to any person, who
undertakes door to door transportation of time sensitive
documents, goods or articles, by carrying/
accompanying the said time sensitive documents, goods
or article, either directly (by himself) or indirectly
(through another person). The definition itself provides
17 ST/85793/2014
that the person could have carried the said documents,
goods or article himself for delivery to consignee or
could handover to some other person to accompany the
said time sensitive documents, goods or article, for
delivery. Another notable aspect of the definition is the
absence of words "consignor" and "consignee" from the
said definition. In absence of the said words in the
definition, it is immaterial whether the consignment
being carried is handed over by the consignor for
delivery to the consignee, or by any other person. The
essence is that the person should be providing the
service of transportation of time sensitive documents,
goods or article, by accompanying the said time
sensitive documents, goods or article, either himself or
by employing the service of any other person. Thus if
one courier agency books the consignment and hand
over the same to another courier agency for further
delivery, then both the persons are providing the courier
agency service. In case of Vijayanand Roadlines [2006
(1) STR 113 (T-Bang)] it was held as follows:
"5. In so far as the claim of the appellants for
abatement of duty paid in respect of the customers
having come and delivered the documents to their door
and their contention that the same is not covered by the
definition of Courier Service, is rejected. The definition of
'courier service' in Para 27 of the Act read as follows:
"Courier agency" means a commercial concern engaged
in the door-to-door transportation of time-sensitive
documents, goods or articles utilizing the services of a
18 ST/85793/2014
person, either directly or indirectly, to carry or accompany
such documents, goods or articles".
The violation to the definition cannot be made in a
manner so as to interpret in a way that would make the
definition otiose and redundant. The activity of the
appellant transporting time-sensitive documents, goods
or articles utilizing the services of a person either directly
or indirectly to carry or accompany such documents,
goods or articles is not denied. The appellants' only
contention is that they are not going to the door of the
customer and want to restrict the term 'door-to-door'
transportation to mean that it excludes the cases where
the customer comes to their door. Such an interpretation
is not possible. When the services of a person is utilized
either directly or indirectly inasmuch as the customer
goes to the courier agent's office and delivers his
documents, goods or articles, it is also required to be
considered as covered under the definition of "Courier
Agency". The findings given by the Commissioner
(Appeals) on this point is reproduced herein below:
"Courier Agencies undertake the service of transportation
of goods and documents from one place to another where
time sensitivity and ensuring delivery at the door is the
prime criteria. Only in respect of very big customers, the
courier agencies collect the documents from the premises
of the customers and deliver to the consignees. They do
not collect the documents at the door of every consigner. I
cannot think of any acceptable reason for exempting
services where the consigners go to the office of the
courier to deposit the documents from the ambit of
Service Tax. Such a distinction in courier services is very
much repugnant to common sense. In my view even if the
consigner goes to the office of the courier for depositing
the documents, the same should be considered door-to-
door delivery. I also do not find any difference in tariff
19 ST/85793/2014
rates on account of the fact that the documents and
goods are not collected from the premises of the consigner
and delivered in the premises of the consignees.
Therefore, door-to-door transportation should be
interpreted to include the cases where consigners and
consignees go to the courier office for depositing the
documents and taking delivery of the same."
This decision of Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex
Court as reported in [2006 (4) STR J115 (SC)]. The crux
of the said decision is that the phrase "door to door" do
not restrict the scope of definition of the "Courier
Agency" to the activity of person picking up the time
sensitive documents and goods from the doorstep of
consignor for delivery to the doorstep of consignee. The
said phrase as used in the definition is to be read vis a
vis the person providing the Courier Agency service.
6.1 In view of the above, we examine the terms of
"International Transportation Services Agreement" dated
30/10/2010-
"UPS Jetair Express Pvt Ltd (referred to as the
'Contractor") a company organized and existing under
Companies Act of 1956 (the "Act") and having its
registered office at Comtrade Centre, Cambatta Building.
J Tata Road Mumbai -400020 India, and,
UPS worldwide Forwarding INC (referred to as "UPS") a
corporation organized under the laws of State of
Delaware, United State of America, and having its
principle place of business at No 55 Glentake Parkway N
E Atlanta, Georgia 30328, United State of America.
20 ST/85793/2014
The Contractor and UPS are collectively referred to as
"Parties"
Witnesseth
The Contractor was incorporated pursuant to a Joint
Venture Agreement dated October 30, 2000 (the "JVA")
between UPS International Forwarding Inc and Jetair Ltd
to engage in the export and import of freight forwarding
of express documents/ parcels and shipments:
UPS desires that the Contractor, as an independent
contractor, perform services required by UPS in the
transportation of small packages, in the territory (which
shall mean the territory of the Union of India, hereinafter
referred to as the "territory") and the Contractor is willing
to do so; and
The Contractor desires that UPS, a worldwide freight
forwarder, perform services required by the Contractor in
the transportation of small packages throughout the
world, outside India and UPS is willing to do so.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE, the Parties agree:
1A. Capitalized terms not defined in this Agreement
shall have the meaning as defined in the JVA.
1.0 Obligations of UPS
1.1 UPS shall perform services for the Contractor
in the transportation of small packages
throughout the world. Guidelines for these
services are set forth in the "ISPS Shipment
Manual", the "IOPS Manual" and the "UPS
Service Guide" (as amended from time to
time), copies of which UPS shall provide the
Contractor.
1.2 For services rendered by the Contractor, UPS
shall pay for the compensation in accordance
with the attached Exhibit B. The Contractor
shall provide the pertinent invoices for the
21 ST/85793/2014
said services every week, within seven (7)
days after the end of the week when the
packages are tendered to the Contractor. UPS
shall forward payments to the Contractor
within thirty (30) days from the receipt of
proper invoices and supporting documents.
1.3 UPS shall be li9able for all admitted claims
for loss or damage to shipments and will hold
Contractor harmless except if the loss or
damage to the shipments was due to the
Contractor's gross negligence or willful
conduct. However, the Contractor shall be
liable for all claims for loss or damage to
shipments due to their gross negligence and
willful conduct.
2.0 Obligations of the Contractor
2.1 The Contractor shall perform services for UPS
in the transportation of small packages in the
Service Area. Guidelines for these services
are set forth in the "ISPS Shipment Manual",
the "IOPS Manual" and the "UPS Service
Guide" (as amended from time to time), copies
of which UPS shall provide the Contractor.
2.2 The Contractor shall calculate the
dimensional weight of the package in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the
attached Exhibit C. To ensure proper
processing, the Contractor shall specify the
dimensional weight on the waybill prior to
export of each consignment. UPS shall audit
shipments for dimensional weight to ensure
the Contractor's compliance with the
procedure set forth in attached Exhibit C.
Should there be any discrepancy between the
actual dimensional weight and that specified
in the waybill, the Contractor shall be held
22 ST/85793/2014
responsible for said discrepancy. In this
regard, the Contractor shall be charged for
the discrepancy within thirty (30) days based
on the net settlement invoice. In addition, UPS
shall also charge the Contractor a surcharge
of five U.S. dollars (U.S. $ 5.00) as processing
fee for each shipment discrepancy.
2.3 For services rendered by UPS, the Contractor
shall pay for the compensation in accordance
with the attached Exhibit B. UPS shall provide
the pertinent net settlement invoices every
week, within seven (7) days after the end of
the week when the packages are tendered to
UPS. The Contractor shall forward payments
to the UPS within thirty (30) days from the
receipt of proper invoices and supporting
documents from UPS.
2.4 .....
2.5 ...."
6.2 From the above clauses of the agreement it is
evident that both, the Appellants and UPS Worldwide
are engaged in the export and import of freight
forwarding of express documents/ parcels and
shipments. Further the territory and scope of operations
of both are well defined by the agreement. As per the
agreement, appellants are rendering services only within
the territory of India and no part of such service is
rendered outside India. This agreement is an
instrument by which UPS Worldwide has bifurcated its
operation of undertaking door to door delivery of time
sensitive documents and goods into various parts. They
23 ST/85793/2014
undertake door to door delivery of the time sensitive
documents and goods, through various entities created
with specific territorial jurisdiction. Appellant in the
scheme of things provide the services in the territory of
India. Appellant as such would not be in position to
undertake the delivery or pickup of consignments from
the foreign territory. Thus they deliver the time sensitive
documents and goods to UPS Worldwide for getting
them, deliver to the consignee located in foreign
territory, through UPS Foreign entity. Similarly UPS
Worldwide delivers the time sensitive documents and
goods picked up from foreign territory to the appellant
at the international airport for delivery of the same
within the territory of India. Even the chart submitted
by the Appellant Counsel during argument and with the
written submissions (refer para 3 above) establishes the
same.
6.3 Further to understand the scheme of operations
during the course of hearing the Counsel for Appellant's
was asked to sample documents for the various cases of
shipment. These sample documents are reproduced
below:
24 ST/85793/2014
25 ST/85793/2014
26 ST/85793/2014
27 ST/85793/2014
28 ST/85793/2014
29 ST/85793/2014
6.3 From the perusal of the said documents, following
can be concluded-
a. Export Pre Paid Sample
i. Document for the transportation of the
parcel is generated online and the Shipper is
30 ST/85793/2014
required to acknowledge the agreement with
UPS.
ii. After generation of the said document,
Appellants get the parcel picked up from the
premises of the consignor for delivery to the
UPS, at International Airport.
iii. On the Airway bill, appellant is indicated as
shipper instead of the consignor.
Thus from the documents prepared also it is quite
evident that for the carriage of the said parcel, UPS
Worldwide has acted as courier agency for carriage of
the said parcel from the international Airport in India
for delivery to the consignee.
b. Import Pre Paid Sample
i. Document for the transportation of the
parcel is generated online and the Shipper is
required to acknowledge the agreement with
UPS.
ii. UPS foreign entity picks up the shipment
from the premises of consignor for delivery to
airlines arranged by UPS WWF for delivery to
International Airport in India.
iii. Appellants inform the consignee on receipt of
cargo arrival notice, and pick up the parcel
from the International Airport for delivery to
the consignee after billing him for delivery
31 ST/85793/2014
order fees for release of the said consignment
and payment of requisite taxes.
In this case appellants have provided the courier agency
service to UPS Worldwide for delivery of the said
consignment from the International Airport to premises
of consignee. They have as per the agreement provided
the complete service within India only and not even a
part of service has been provided outside India. For the
services provided by the appellant they have received
consideration from the UPS Worldwide in convertible
foreign exchange.
c. Export Freight Collect:
i. Appellants arranges for collection and
delivery of parcel to UPS Worldwide in the
same manner as Export Prepaid case.
ii. Once the shipment is delivered, UPS Foreign
entity bills the consignee.
In this case appellants have provided the courier
agency service to UPS Worldwide for picking up of
the said consignment from the premises of Indian
exporter for delivery to International Airport. They
have as per the agreement provided the complete
service within India only and not even a part of
service has been provided outside India. For the
services provided by the appellant they have
32 ST/85793/2014
received consideration from the UPS Worldwide in
convertible foreign exchange.
6.5 From the facts as stated above it is quite evident
that in case of Export pre-paid UPS Worldwide has
provided Courier Agency Service to Appellants, and in
case of Import Prepaid and Export Freight Collect,
appellants have provided Courier Agency Services to
UPS Worldwide.
6.6 In the agreement, by the use of phrase "in the
export and import of freight forwarding of express
documents/ parcels and shipments" it is quite evident
that both appellant and UPS Worldwide are engaged in
providing "Express Cargo Service". The service as
provided by UPS Worldwide to Appellant will be covered
by Express Cargo Service as has been clarified by the
Circular No 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007. The
relevant extracts of the said circular are reproduced
below:
Query Some transporters undertake door- to-door
transportation of goods or articles and they have made
special arrangements for speedy transportation and
timely delivery of such goods or articles. Such services
are known as 'Express Cargo Service' with assurance of
timely delivery.
Whether such 'Express cargo service' is covered under
courier agency service [section 65(105)(f)]?
Reply The nature of service provided by
'Express Cargo Service' provider falls within the
scope and definition of the courier agency. Hence,
33 ST/85793/2014
the said service is liable to service tax under
courier agency service [section 65(105)(f)].
6.7 In view of discussions as above we are of the view
that in case of Export Pre-paid, where the consignments
are booked by the Appellant for delivery in for territory
appellants receive the services from UPS Worldwide for
picking up the said consignments from International
Airport for delivery in foreign territory. Since Appellants
have received the services from UPS Worldwide and the
origin of the said services is within India, service tax
required to be paid by UPS Worldwide is to be paid by
the Appellant on reverse charge mechanism as provided
for in Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 read with rule
3(ii) of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India
and Received in India) Rules, 2006. For ease of
reference the said provisions are reproduced below:
Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994
66A. (1) Where any service specified in clause (105) of
section 65 is,--
(a) provided or to be provided by a person who
has established a business or has a fixed
establishment from which the service is
provided or to be provided or has his
permanent address or usual place of residence,
in a country other than India, and
(b) received by a person (hereinafter referred to as
the recipient) who has his place of business,
fixed establishment, permanent address or
usual place of residence, in India,
34 ST/85793/2014
such service shall, for the purposes of this section, be the
taxable service, and such taxable service shall be treated
as if the recipient had himself provided the service in
India, and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter
shall apply:
Provided that where the recipient of the service is an
individual and such service received by him is otherwise
than for the purpose of use in any business or commerce,
the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply:
Provided further that where the provider of the service
has his business establishment both in that country and
elsewhere, the country, where the establishment of the
provider of service directly concerned with the provision
of service is located, shall be treated as the country from
which the service is provided or to be provided.
(2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a
permanent establishment in India and through another
permanent establishment in a country other than India,
such permanent establishments shall be treated as
separate persons for the purposes of this section.
Explanation 1.--A person carrying on a business through
a branch or agency in any country shall be treated as
having a business establishment in that country.
Explanation 2.--Usual place of residence, in relation to a
body corporate, means the place where it is incorporated
or otherwise legally constituted.
Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India
and Received in India) Rules, 2006
3. Taxable services provided from outside India and
received in India.- Subject to section 66A of the Act, the
taxable services provided from outside India and received
in India shall, in relation to taxable services-
(i) specified in sub-clauses (d), (p), (q), (v), (zzq), (zzza),
(zzzb), (zzzc), (zzzh), (zzzr), (zzzy), (zzzz) and (zzzza)
35 ST/85793/2014
of clause (105) of section 65 of the Act, be such
services as are provided or to be provided in
relation to an immovable property situated in India;
(a) (ii) specified in sub-clauses (a), (f), (h),(i), (j), (l), (m),
(n), (o), (s), (t), (u), (w), (x), (y), (z), (zb), (zc), (zi), (zj),
(zn), (zo), (zq), (zr), (zt), (zu), (zv), (zw), (zza), (zzc),
(zzd), (zzf), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzl), (zzm), (zzn), (zzo),
(zzp), (zzs), (zzt), (zzv), (zzw), (zzx), (zzy), (zzzd),
(zzze), (zzzf), and (zzzp) of clause (105) of section
65 of the Act, be such services as are performed in
India:
Provided that where such taxable service is partly
performed in India, it shall be treated as performed
in India and the value of such taxable service shall
be determined under section 67 of the Act and the
rules made thereunder;
(iii) specified in clause (105) of section 65 of the Act, but
excluding-
(a) sub-clauses (zzzo) and (zzzv);
(b) those specified in clause (i) of this rule except when
the provision of taxable services specified in
clauses (d), (zzzc), and (zzzr) does not relate to
immovable property; and
(c) those specified in clause (ii) of this rule, be such
services as are received by a recipient located in
India for use in relation to business or commerce.
6.8 It is quite evident from the agreement that entire
services provided by the appellant to UPS Worldwide for
picking up the consignments in case of Export Freight
Collect and for delivery in the case of Import pre paid
have been provided in India. Since these services are
provided in India, they are liable to service tax.
36 ST/85793/2014
Appellants have claimed exemption treating the services
provided as Export of Service as the payment was
received in convertible foreign exchange. To treat a
particular transaction or provision of service as export
of service, during the relevant period, reference is to be
made to Export of Service Rules, 2005. Rule 3 of the
said rules, relevant for making such determination is
reproduced below:
"3. Export of taxable service.- (1) The export of taxable
service shall, in relation to taxable services,-
i. ........;
ii. in relation to taxable services specified in sub-
clauses (a), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (m), (n), (o), (s), (t),
(u), (w), (x), (y), (z), (zb), (zc), (zi), (zj), (zn), (zo),
(zq), (zr), (zt), (zu), (zv), (zw), (zza), (zzc), (zzd),
(zzf), (zzg), (zzh), (zzi), (zzj), (zzl), (zzm), (zzn),
(zzo), (zzp), (zzs), (zzt), (zzv), (zzw), (zzx) and
(zzy) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Act,
be provision of such services as are
performed outside India:
Provided that if such a taxable service is partly
performed outside India, it shall be considered to
have been performed outside India;
....
(2) The provisions of any taxable service specified in sub-rule (1) shall be treated as export of service when following conditions are satisfied namely:-
.......
(b) Payment for such service is received by the service provider in convertible foreign exchange.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule "India" includes the designated areas in the Continental Shelf 37 ST/85793/2014 and Exclusive Economic Zone of India as declared by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs Nos. S.O.429(E), dated the 18th July, 1986 and S.O.643(E), dated the 19th September 1996." Thus for taxable service specified in Rule 3(1)(ii) before provision of service can be treated as export of service, two conditions are mandatorily required to be fulfilled namely, some part of the service needs to be necessarily be provided outside India and the payment against provisioning of such service is received in convertible foreign exchange. In the present case as per the agreement between appellant and UPS Worldwide, the appellant is performing entire services, within India and no part of the service is provided outside India. Admittedly the services provided by the appellant are courier agency service defined under Section 65(105)(f), and specified by the Rule 3(1)(ii). Thus in view of the fact the no component of service has been provided by the appellant outside India, the services provided by them to UPS Worldwide cannot be termed as export of services, even if the payment against them are received in convertible foreign exchange. Thus exemption claimed by the appellant against provision of these services, by treating them as export of service is not admissible.
7.1 Now coming to the issue of limitation. Counsel for appellant has vehemently argued stating that audit of 38 ST/85793/2014 their records for the period 2005 to 2009 was undertaken on 8th February 2010. During the course of audit all the facts and financials were disclosed to the audit officers hence department is not justified in invoking extended period of limitation as provided by proviso to Section 73(1) for making the demands. On the contrary learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of revenue submitted that audit was limited to CENVAT account. Further appellants had not disclosed the relevant facts to the department on their ST-3 return. Thus by not disclosing the relevant details in the ST-3 returns appellants have willfully suppressed the material facts and hence extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked for making the demand. 7.2 From the facts as available on record and admitted by the appellants it is quite evident that appellants had not disclosed the amount of the payment received by them against the services provided by them to UPS Worldwide in respect of which they claimed exemption treating them to be export of services, in their ST-3 returns. Further they had never disclosed the amounts in respect of which they were required to discharge the service tax liability on reverse charge basis. The agreement between the appellant and UPS Worldwide was also not disclosed to the revenue. Since appellants were required to disclose these details in their ST-3 returns and have not disclosed the same they 39 ST/85793/2014 have knowingly suppressed the relevant information from revenue. In similar situation, in case of Star India Pvt Ltd. [2015 (38) S.T.R. 884 (Tri. - Mumbai)] following has been held:-
"5.15 The next issue for consideration is the time-bar aspect. The contention of the appellant since is that they were only required to declare the consideration received in the ST-3 return and in the case of foreign advertisers the consideration was paid directly to Star Hong Kong, there cannot be any misdeclaration on their part. This contention is obviously wrong. In the ST-3 return, there was a column wherein the appellant was required to declare the amount charged to the service recipient, apart from the amount received. As per the agreement, dated 1- 4-1999, SIPL was appointed as non-exclusive independent representative in the territory of India to solicit television advertising for the channels, namely, Channel V, Star World, Star Plus, Star News, Star Movies and such other channels as may be added in future and to collect and remit advertisement charges. The responsibility also included delivery of the invoices to the advertisers on a timely basis. Thus the appellant obviously knew the amount charged for the broadcasting services. Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, mandated that - "Every person liable to pay the Service Tax shall himself assess the tax due on the services provided by him and shall furnish to the Superintendent of Central Excise, a return in such form and in such manner and at such frequency as may be prescribed." Thus the appellant was operating under self-assessment procedure during the impugned period. The appellant has failed to declare in the said return the complete particulars with regard to the services rendered to the foreign advertisers. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of
40 ST/85793/2014 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madras Petrochem Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Revenue would squarely apply. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as follows:-
"14. The proposition of law as laid down is not in dispute. We find in the present case as aforesaid, a clear finding was recorded that the petitioner was aware and was obliged to file RG 1 Register, gate passes and also of clearances in the RT 12 returns by disclosing the particulars which was not done in the present case. The finding recorded in this case, especially in the background that this was a case of self-removal procedure in which there is obligation cast on the assessee to make proper and correct declaration and entries in the production register RG 1. Further finding was that it was not by inadvertence. There could be no other inference if it was not by inadvertence, then deliberate, then it is not in the realm of inaction of the assessee but with the objective of a gain, which in other words would be conscious withholding of the information. Thus unhesitantly we conclude, on the facts of this case, proviso to Section 11 would be applicable, hence, show cause notice is held to be within time."
Applying the above ratio to the facts of the case before us, the invocation of extended period of time to confirm the tax demand cannot be faulted at all and we hold accordingly. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Salasar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. & C., Surat-I - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 322 (Guj.) has held that -
"15. Upon reading the relevant provisions contained in Section 11A of the Act, it becomes clear that in case of duty which has not been levied or paid, or has been
41 ST/85793/2014 short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, etc., period of service of notice on the person chargeable with such duty would be five years instead of one year provided in normal circumstances. Nowhere does this provision refer to the period of service of notice after fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression, etc., comes to the knowledge of the Department. In simple terms, the Department could recover unpaid duty up to a period of five years anterior to the date of service of notice when the case falls under proviso to sub-section (1) and such omission is on account of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, etc."
Thus in our considered view, the invocation of extended period of time for confirmation of demand is fully justified and we hold accordingly."
7.3 Similarly In case of Steel Industries Kerala [2005 (188) ELT 33 (T)] it has been held that-
"3.We find that in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 2001 (134) E.L.T. 269, the Tribunal has upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation when the assessees did not declare waste and scrap of iron and steel and aluminum and availment of credit thereon either in their classification list or MODVAT declaration or in the statutory records. The Tribunal held that the theory of universal knowledge cannot be attributed to the department in the absence of any declaration. In the light of this decision, we agree with the learned DR that the demand could not have been held to be barred by limitation and accordingly set aside the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals)."
42 ST/85793/2014 7.4 In case of Pasupati Spinning and Weaving Mills [2015 (318) ELT 623 (SC)], Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"...........Equally, we do not think that there is any ground for interference on the extended period of limitation being applicable inasmuch as CESTAT is again correct in saying that as the declaration and RT-12 returns being vital documents submitted by the respondent (appellant herein) did not mention the vital word "hanks", they suppressed a material fact which, to their knowledge, would not bring their sewing thread within the exemption Notification. For all these reasons, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, without any order as to costs."
7.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Madras Petrochem {1999 (108) ELT 611 (SC)] held as follows:
"9.The contention for the revenue is that under the self removal procedure, the primary obligation of an assessee is to make proper declarations and entries in the production Register RG 1, the gate passes and RT 12 returns unlike in the Physical Control System where the Excise Inspector present in the factory has to duty of completing the assessment on the spot. We find that the Tribunal has considered the contention of both the parties and came to the conclusion as under:
"It was incumbent on the appellants to file necessary classification lists in respect of the T.O. and white oil, the enter the production figures in the RG 1 Register, to effect clearances under gate passes and to disclose the particulars of clearances in the RT 12 returns. These submissions were not controverted by the appellants 43 ST/85793/2014 before us. The suppression of material particulars in respect of the production and clearance of T.O. for consumption outside the factory and white oil for consumption within the factory could not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be said to be through inadvertence."
10.So, we have no hesitation to hold on facts of this case in view of finding recorded by the statutory authorities concurrently, that proviso to Section 11A would be attracted, as it stood at the material time and the demand was, therefore, within time as recorded above. This finding has been recorded consistently by all the authorities below and we do not find any error to interfere with the same.
11.Then, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the following decisions of this Court regarding interpretation of Section 11 of the Act. In the case of Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1994 (73) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) = 1994 (2) Supp. III 258], this Court while interpreting proviso to Section 11A held that extension of limitation period beyond six months up to five years for making a demand for excise duty, there has to be conscious or deliberate withholding of information by assessee and mere inaction is not enough. The relevant portion relied is read as under:
"........under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act (earlier Rule 10 of the Rules made under the said Act), it has to be established that the excise duty had not been levied or paid or short levied or short-paid, or erroneously refunded by reasons of either fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or the Rules with intent to evade payment. Something more positive than mere inaction or failure on the part of the assessee or conscious or deliberate withholding of 44 ST/85793/2014 information when the assessee knew otherwise was required before the assessee could be saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months.""
12.Learned Counsel further referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad [1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) = 1989 (2) SCC 127], which has also been referred in the aforesaid decision.
13.Another submission is with reference to the decision in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1998 (99) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) = 1998 (3) SCC 540] that this proviso should be strictly construed. It was held that the proviso to Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act permitting the extension time should not be stretched more than the elasticity supplied in the section itself. So, the eventuality envisaged in Section 11A for further lengthening of the limitation period must be strictly construed.
14. The proposition of law as laid down is not in dispute. We find in the present case as aforesaid, a clear finding was recorded that the petitioner was aware and was obliged to file RG 1 Register, gate passes and also of clearances in the RT 12 returns by disclosing the particulars which was not done in the present case. The finding recorded in this case, especially in the background that this was a case of self removal procedure in which there is obligation cast on the assessee to make proper and correct declaration and entries in the production register RG 1. Further finding was that it was not by inadvertence. There could be no other inference if it was not by inadvertence, then deliberate, then it is not in the realm of inaction of the assessee but with the objective of a gain, which in other words would be conscious withholding of the information.
45 ST/85793/2014 Thus unhesitantly we conclude, on the facts of this case, proviso to Section 11 would be applicable, hence, show cause notice is held to be within time."
7.6 Thus when the appellants have not disclosed the required information in their ST-3 returns following the ratio of the above mentioned decisions we are of the view that extended period of limitation has been correctly invoked for demanding the service tax. 8.0 The demand as per the order of the Commissioner has been quantified on the basis of the information furnished by the Appellants vide their letter dated 15.11.2013. Since demand has been quantified as per the information submitted by the Appellants themselves the same cannot be disputed at this stage. 9.1 Since the charge of suppression with intent to evade payment of tax has been upheld by us, the penalty under Section 78 is justified and upheld. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Vandana Arts Print Pvt Ltd. [2017 (50) S.T.R. 91 (S.C.)] held that-
"4. A neat submission that has been made by Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, is that in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the penalty has to be equal to the duty so determined.
5. Section 11AC of the Act reads as under :-
"11AC. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. - Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or 46 ST/85793/2014 erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2) of section 11A, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined :
Provided that where the duty determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, then, for the purposes of this section, the duty as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account."
6. On the basis of the aforesaid language in the Section, the submission of Mr. Radhakrishnan is meritorious. Thus, while the penalty as demanded in respect of one Show Cause Notice had been quashed, the Tribunal could not reduce it for an amount lesser than the duty which has been upheld. The duty in respect of two demands comes to Rs. 40,44,720/-. Therefore, going by the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, the penalty should also have been Rs. 40,44,720/- and not Rs. 20 lakhs."
9.2 In case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)] Hon'ble Apex Court has held that once it is found that ingredients for invocation of section 11AC exist then tribunal do not have any jurisdiction to reduce the quantum of penalty. The relevant excerpts are reproduced below:
"23. The decision in Dharamendra Textile must, therefore, be understood to mean that though the application of Section 11AC would depend upon the 47 ST/85793/2014 existence or otherwise of the conditions expressly stated in the section, once the section is applicable in a case the concerned authority would have no discretion in quantifying the amount and penalty must be imposed equal to the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A. That is what Dharamendra Textile decides."
9.3 Since in the present case we have found that ingredients for invoking provisions of Section 78 exist we uphold the penalties imposed under that section. 9.4 Also the penalties under Section 77, for non filing of proper returns and submission of complete information are upheld 10.1 Demand for interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 is also upheld in view of the Apex Court decision in case of Kerala State Electricity Board [2008 (9) STR 3 (SC)] "16. Submissions of Mr. Iyer that the payment of interest was the statutory liability of the service provider must be considered in the aforementioned context. If Appellant itself was liable for payment of tax, it was also liable for payment of statutory interest thereupon, if the same had not been deposited within the time stipulated by the statute. The liability to pay tax was not on the foreign company. Only on default on the part of the appellant the interest was leviable. Appellant was clearly liable therefor. In other words, the liability being that of the appellant, it must accept the liability of payment of interest leviable thereupon in terms of statute occasioned by the breach on its part to deposit the amount of tax within the prescribed time."
48 ST/85793/2014 11.0 In view of the above we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
(Pronounced in court on 16.11.2018)
(Dr. D.M. Misra) (Sanjiv Srivastava)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
tvu