Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Asia Metals vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 27 March, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/571,641-647/2009 (Arising out of OIO-01/COMMISSIONER/RKS/AHD-II/2009 dated 05.01.2009, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad) 1. M/s. Asia Metals : Appellant (s) 2. Shri Pratik Gandhi - Partner of M/s. Asia Metals 3. Shri Satish Jadeja 4. Shri Dharmendrasing Chudasama 5. M/s. Vitrag Impex 6. Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain Power of Attorney Holder M/s. Vitrag Impex 7. M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited 8. Shri Kishor Purohit Manager of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri J.C. Patel, Shri Rahul Gajera and Ms. M. A. Gogia, Advocates For Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 13.02.2015 Date of Decision : 27.03.2015 ORDER No. A/10284-10291/2015 Dated 27.03.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.
2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Asia Metals (hereinafter to referred to as the Assessee), a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), were engaged in the manufacture of various grades of Brass scraps, Brass ingots, Aluminium ingots, Copper ingots and granules etc. out of the imported duty free raw materials i.e. different types of Copper scrap, Aluminium scrap and Brass scraps. On 27/28.04.2005, the Central Excise officers from the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) visited the factory premises of the assessee, conducted stock verification and found shortage of 5.867 MT Zinc Scrap. The said officers also visited the premises of Appellant No. 5 and 7 and recorded the statements of various persons, partner of the assessee, transporters, Shri Kishorbhai Purohit, Manager of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited (Appellant No.8) and Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain, Power of Attorney holder of M/s. Vitrag Impex (Appellant No.6).
3. A show cause notice dated 30.6.2006 was issued to the assessee proposing demand of Customs duty alongwith interest on 203.428 MT of imported duty free raw materials used in the manufacture of finished goods, which was diverted in the local market and demand of Central Excise duty alongwith interest on 31.537MT and 64.902MT of finished goods cleared to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited and M/s. Vitrag Impex, respectively without payment of duty. It has also proposed confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the assessee and other appellants. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority passed the order as under:-
(a) Confiscation of the raw materials weighing 203.428MTs imported duty free and utilised in finished goods removed clandestinely, and as the goods were not available for confiscation, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 15,80,000/-. It has confirmed the demand of Customs duty of Rs. 24,87,261/- alongwith interest on the said raw material and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the assessee.
(b) Confiscation of finished goods of 96.439MTs (31.537MTs of Aluminium Ingots cleared to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited and 64.902MT of finished goods cleared to M/s. Vitrag Impex) manufactured out of duty free raw materials and cleared clandestinely and as the goods were not available for confiscation, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 8,50,000/- and also confirmed demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 8,62,306/- alongwith interest on the said finished goods and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the assessee.
(c) Confiscation of 5.867MTs of Zinc Scrap found short as per Panchnama dated 27/ 28.04.2005 and as the goods were not available for confiscation imposed redemption fine of Rs. 37,500/- and also confirmed demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 51,732/- alongwith interest on the said goods and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Act on the assessee. It has appropriated the amount of Rs. 43,251/- as deposited by the assessee on 28.04.2005 and also directed to enforce the Bond executed by the assessee.
(d) Imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on each of the partners of the assessee being Appellant No. 2,3 and 4 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 each on Appellant No. 5 and 7 and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- each on Appellant No. 6 and 8.
4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that as per Para 4.1.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy- 2004-2009, with the permission of Central Excise authorities, the assessee were allowed to supply the goods to the holder of advance license M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited. Further, as per Para 6.9(b) of the policy, the assessee were permitted to supply in DTA to M/s. Vitrag Impex against the foreign exchange payments received from the Overseas. It is submitted that the appellants paid duty on the supplies in DTA. Learned Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant paragraphs of the Policy and various documents in respect of permission of the Central Excise authorities and Departmental authorities for supply of the goods to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited, Advance Licence holder and M/s. Vitrag Impex in DTA sales. It is contended that both the parties have admitted the receipt of the goods and the demand of Central Excise duty is not sustainable. It is further contended that according to the Department, the raw materials were used in the finished goods, which were diverted in the local market. As the demand of Central Excise duty were raised on the finished goods and therefore, demand of Customs duty on raw materials can not be sustained. He relied upon various decisions, as under:-
(a) CCE vs. Sanjari Twisters 2009 (235) ELT 116
(b) Commissioner vs. Sanjari Twisters 2010 (255) ELT A15
(c) Vandevi Texturisers Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE 2007 (220) ELT 289 5 He also submits that the adjudicating authority merely proceeded on the basis of statements of the transporters. Appellant No. 6 and 8 had clarified their statements during cross examination. It is contended that the goods were received by the said parties and the advance license holder was granted EODC certifying discharge of export obligation under the advance license and duty can not be demanded. He relied upon the following decisions:-
(a) CCE vs. Nirmal Kumar Aggarwal 2008 (230) ELT 47
(b) CCE vs. Nirmal Kumar Aggarwal 2011 (270) ELT A91
(c) CCE vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips P. Ltd 2008 (229) ELT 661
(d) Commissioner vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt. Limited 2009 (242) ELT A83 Learned Advocate also submitted Written Submission. He fairly submits that they are not contesting the demand of duty on the shortage being a small amount, which they have already paid.
6. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the order, insofar as the statements of the transporters. He submits that taking into account the various statements of the transporters and the appellants, it is clearly evident that the appellant diverted the finished goods manufactured out of duty free imported materials, in the local market in contravention of the Policy and exemption notification.
7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the main issue involved in this case is whether demand of Central Excise duty alongwith interest and penalty and confiscation of the quantity of 31.537MT of Aluminium ingots and 64.902MT of finished goods cleared by the assessee to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited and M/s. Vitrag Impex, respectively, manufactured out of duty free raw materials are sustainable.
8. The adjudicating authority observed that the owners of the vehicles in their statements have categorically denied to have transported any goods shown in the relevant invoices and in some cases, the vehicles used for transportation were not capable of transporting the goods. Shri Chhaganbhai Garg, Partner of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited in his statement dated 25.11.2005, admitted that they have never received the quantity of 31.537MT of Aluminium Ingots as per invoice dated 28.12.2004 and 12.01.2005, issued by the assessee. No voucher related to the payment of freight made in respect of the consignment received from the assessee, was found during the search. Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Vitrag Impex (Appellant No.6), in his statement dated 27.2.2006 stated that the goods covered under various invoices issued by the assessee in their favour, were not received at all by them; that the said transactions were made at the behest of Shri Pratik Gandhi, partner of the assessee. The adjudicating authority also observed that the duty free raw materials procured by the assessee were not used for intended purposes. In fact, the finished goods manufactured out of imported duty free raw materials, were removed clandestinely without duty paying documents and in order to cover up the said illegal transactions, they have shown to have cleared the goods on deemed export basis or against the advance licenses. It is further noticed that in some cases, the duty free materials were diverted into local market without payment of duty.
9. As regards the clearances of goods to the quantity of 31.537MT of Aluminium ingots to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited, it is submitted by the appellant that they supplied the materials to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited, advance license holder, as per Para 4.1.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy, with the permission of Central Excise authorities. The relevant portion of the said Policy is reproduced below:-
4.1.11 Advance Release Orders An Advance Licence holder, holder of advance licence for annual requirement and holder of DFRC intending to source the inputs from indigenous sources/ State Trading Enterprises/ EOU/ SEZ/ EHTP/ STP/ BTP units in lieu of direct import has the opinion to source them against Advance Release Orders denominated in foreign exchange/ Indian rupees. 9.1 So, Advance License holder (i.e. M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited) is entitled to source the inputs from EOU (i.e. the assessee). It is seen from the impugned order that the Appellant No. 8 in his statement dated 30.11.2005 stated that they purchased Aluminium Ingots and Scraps from the assessee under proper invoices. He also confirmed the receipt of goods vide invoice dated 28.12.2004 of 16.730MT and Invoice dated 12.01.2005 fro 14.847MT of Aluminium Ingots, which are the subject matter of the present appeals. It is also stated that they received the goods alongwith ARE-3 issued by M/s. Asia Metals in duplicate out of which one copy was being returned to the respective Central Excise office by their jurisdictional Central Excise office after obtaining stamp and signature from them about the receipt of the goods in their premises, whereas another copy in the same manner was kept by their jurisdictional Central Excise office; they had invariably indicated the details of goods received in the certificate of warehousing.
9.2 It is seen from the copy of the Advance License (Page 189 of the appeal) of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited that the said invoices were duly recorded in the license and Customs authorities put note Statement of Export verified. It is further seen that the assessee by letter dated 11.01.2005 requested the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot for permission of excess clearance of 2.00MT of Aluminium Ingots to the Advance License holder M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited. By letter dated 12.01.2005, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise permitted to supply 2.00MT to the said Company against Advance License. I find that the assessee by letter dated 12.01.2005 forwarded copy of the sale invoices to the Superintendent of Central Excise as sold by them as per permission of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot.
10. The assessee supplied the goods to M/s. Vitrag Impex as per Para 6.9(b) of the Policy against foreign exchange remittance received from Overseas upon payment of full duty. Relevant portion of the policy is reproduced below:-
6.9 Other Supplies in DTA : Following supplies effected from EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units to DTA will be counted for the purpose of fulfilment of positive NFE:-
(a) .
(b) Supplies effected in DTA against payment from the Exchange Earners Foreign Currency (EEFC) Account of the buyer in the DTA or against foreign Exchange remittance received from overseas.
10.1 The assessee by letter dated 15.3.2004, sought permission from the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham to sale the finished goods in DTA under Para 6.9(b) of the Policy against foreign exchange remittance received from M/s. Reza Overseas Metal Trading. The assessee also enclosed the letter of the overseas buyer with the said letter. By letter dated 21.3.2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham permitted the assessee to sale the goods to M/s. Vitrag Impex, subject to the condition as contained therein. By letter dated 10.4.2004, M/s. Vitrag Impex confirmed receipt of materials from the assessee on behalf of M/s. Reza Overseas Metal Trading. I find from the records that the assessee paid the duty in respect of the invoices as mentioned in the impugned order.
10.2 It is seen from the adjudication order that the assessee was allowed to cross-examine Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain (Appellant No.6) of M/s. Vitrag Impex. During the cross-examination, Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain was put to a question by the Commissioner that whether he stands by his statement dated 22.02.2006 or 27.2.2006. In response to this query, it was clarified by Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain that he has studied up to class 10th and can understand only Hindi or Gujarati. Since the statements were in English, it was read out and after understanding the said statements, Shri Jain accepted the statement dated 22.2.2006 and denied to have made statement dated 27.2.2006 and clarified that the statement dated 27.2.2006 was entirely typed out by the DRI officials and he was made to sign the said statement. Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain denied the contention of statement dated 27.2.2006, which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority. Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain was also asked to clarify the mode of payment to M/s. Reza Overseas Metal Trading, Ajman, for which he clarified that the payment is made by cheque.
11. It is seen from the record that Shri Dharmendrasinh Chudasama, Partner of the assessee (Appellant No.4), in his statement dated 28.4.2005 stated that they cleared the goods manufactured by them by way of physical exports, deemed exports, DTA sales against advance licenses, DTA sales against CT-3, DTA sales against 100% duty and 50% duty. They exported the goods to China, U.K. and Australia. They cleared the Silicon scrap, Aluminium scrap, M.S. scrap and Copper scrap to M/s. Vitrag Impex on which duties were paid by the buyers, the transportation was arranged by them and parties have confirmed the receipt of the goods at their end. They had also cleared Aluminium ingots in favour of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited against advance license and transportation was arranged by them for the supplies effected.
11.1 Shri Chhaganbhai Garg, partner of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited in his statement dated 25.11.2005 stated that he did not know the name from where the goods were purchased as Shri Kishorbhai looked after the same. Shri Kishor Purohit, Manager of M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited (Appellant No.8) in his statement dated 26.11.2005 and 30.11.2005 stated that they purchased Aluminium ingots and Aluminium scraps from the assessee against advance license and availed exemption from duty. He stated that Shri Satishbhai of M/s. Asia Metals was ordered for supply of Aluminium ingots and Aluminium scrap against advance license; they sent the copies of advance licenses, based on which they obtained permission from their jurisdictional Central Excise office and provided copy thereof to them; they had sent the original advance license with Release Advise issued from the ICD, Ahmedabad, where the licences were registered; based on which they sent them the goods as mentioned above; they also made entries of receipt in the respective statutory registers; they paid them the amount for the supply they received; the transportation charges were to be paid by them and they paid. In his statement dated 30.11.2005, it was further stated that they purchased raw materials for their factory from M/s. Asia Metals under four bills, details of which given in his statement dated 26.11.2005; they had not made any other transaction; they had purchased goods against the advance license hold by them and thereby claimed exemption from duty payment; as they understood they were permitted to procure goods from EOU and also under the advance license held by them.
11.2 Shri Anil Sohanlal Jain, Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Vitrag Impex (Appellant No.6), in his statement dated 22.02.2006 stated that they have booked the goods according to their requirement and the goods were sent to them. The transport was arranged by the assessee and the cost of the transportation was included in the invoice value of the goods.
11.3 Shri Pratik Gandhi, Partner of the assessee (Appellant No.2) in his statement dated 13.09.2005 stated that he knew Shri Aashiq of M/s. Reza Overseas Metal Trading, who was on the visit to India and whom he met in Rajkot; Shri Aashiq gave them the purchase order, which was submitted by them to the Development Commissioner; on being permitted by Development Commissioner, they informed Shri Aashiq, who released advance payment against the purchase order; they supplied the goods to M/s. Vitrag Impex on payment of duty by them.
12. I find from the records that the assessee produced various documents in the nature of invoices, payment particulars, letters to the Central Excise department, Development Commissioner etc. in respect of supply of goods to the said two parties. In the case supply to M/s. Vitrag Impex, they paid Central Excise duty as required under the Policy. They have also collected foreign exchange from overseas. In the case of supply to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited, they availed exemption and obtained EODC from Joint Director General Foreign Trade authority. Buyers have admitted the receipt of the goods and authenticity and genuineness of these documents were not disputed by the department. In my considered view, such documents can not be brushed aside merely on the basis of non-corroborative statements of the transporters.
12.1 In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Nirmal Kumar Aggarwal 2008 (230) ELT 47 (P&H), the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the identical issue. In that case, the question of law was that, when it has been proved in investigation through incontrovertible evidence that vehicle numbers are fictitious and are not capable of loading huge quantity, can the Tribunal overlook and ignore the evidence collected through investigation and brought on record. In the said case, the Respondent took a stand before the adjudicating authority in response to the show cause notice and submitted reply as under:-
(1) There is no evidence with the Department that the raw material has been directed to some other destination, instead of being transported to the manufacturers factory/premises.
(2) The payments were made through cheques/demand drafts.
(3) Inputs in question have been used in the manufacture of final products which have been cleared on payment of duty.
(4) The RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer, which contains all the documents including (the invoices under dispute) on the basis of which the Modvat credit has been availed and utilised.
(5) The respondents had not played any role in the wrong mentioning of wrong vehicle numbers and the Modvat credit was passed rightly.
The Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 21.12.2004 held that the charges levelled in the show cause notice stands established against the respondents who in connivance with one another, defrauded the Government of its legitimate revenue and imposed the penalty on the respondents. Revenue filed appeal before the Honble Supreme Court against the aforesaid decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Honble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as reported in 2011 (270) ELT A91(SC).
12.2 In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Shakti Roll Cold Strips Pvt. Limited 2008 (229) ELT 661 (P&H). Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In that case, the question of law was, when it has been proved in the investigation that vehicle numbers and Transport Companies are either fictitious or are not capable of loading huge quantity and as per Rule 57GG of Cenvat Credit Rules, no modavatable invoices could be issued until goods were received by the registered dealer; How such registered dealer could have received the goods without a godown, also non-fulfilment of the conditions of transit sales also point in the direction of issue of invoices without actual movement of goods. The Honble High Court observed that Tribunal had recorded the findings that inputs supplied by the Respondent were duly received by the manufacturers and were used in the goods manufactured, which were cleared on payment of duty. It has also been observed that the department has not been able to prove that any other alternative raw material was received and used in the final products. It is further observed that all the documents including invoices on the basis of which the modvat credit had been availed and utilised and that payment for the purchase of the inputs have been made through cheques and Demand Drafts. Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court before the Honble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2009 (242) ELT A83 (SC).
13. In the present case, the assessee obtained permission from the Central Excise authorities to supply the goods to M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited. As per sale contract, the goods were delivered on FOB Rajkot. The said Company also admitted receipt of the goods. In any event, it is the responsibility of the advance license holder to fulfil the conditions. It is significant to note that advance license holder has provided EODC certifying discharge of export obligation under the advance license. Similarly, the supplies made to M/s. Vitrag Impex in DTA against receipt of foreign exchange. The appellants sought for permission for sale in DTA from the Development Commissioner based on the purchase order placed on the appellant by M/s. Reza Overseas Metal Trading of UAE for delivery of goods to M/s. Vitrag Impex. It is important to note that the said sale was made on full payment of duty. In view of the above materials, I do not find any justification to raise demand of Central Excise duty on the goods supplied to the said Companies. So, the demand of Central Excise duty alongwith interest and confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine in respect of supply of materials to the said two parties are not sustainable.
14. The other issue in these appeals is the demand of duty on the raw materials under the Customs Act and confiscation of the said goods and imposition of redemption fine. I find force in the submissions of the learned Advocate on this issue. The adjudicating authority observed that the raw materials imported by the appellant have been utilised by them in the manufacture of finished goods and the said resultant products were diverted into the local market, shown to have been cleared to M/s. Vitrag Impex and M/s. Sai Flipped Coil Pvt. Limited. The adjudicating authority also confirmed demand of Central Excise duty on the finished goods under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal in the case of Vandevi Texturisers Pvt. Limited vs. CCE Surat 2007 (220) ELT 289 (Tri. Ahmd.), in respect of clandestine manufacture and removal by 100% EOU, held that duty has been demanded on the diverted goods, the question of demand of duty on the inputs, which has gone into the finished goods, is not sustainable. In the case of CCE, Surat vs. Sanjari Twisters 2009 (235) ELT 116 (Tri. Ahmd.), the Tribunal rejected the demand raised by the department on raw materials imported by EOU and used in the finished goods and cleared to DTA. The Tribunal held that if the clearances made in excess of permissible limit for DTA clearance it may amount to be a case of diversion of finished goods and no duty is demandable on raw material used in the manufacture of such diverted goods. Revenue filed appeal against the said decision before the Honble Supreme Court, which was rejected as reported in 2010 (255) ELT A15. The other aspect of this issue is that it has already held that demand of duty on finished goods is sustainable as the finished goods were received by the said two parties and therefore, the demand of customs duty on raw material falls through. Hence, the demand of duty on the raw materials alongwith interest and confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine are not warranted.
15. In view of the above discussion, demand of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty as well as confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on the raw materials and the finished goods except shortage of 5.867MTs of Zinc Scrap, on the assessee, are not sustainable. The learned Advocate had not seriously disputed the demand of duty on 5.867MTs Zinc Scrap. It is seen from the adjudication order that, it was admitted that the goods were cleared clandestinely and therefore, penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944 is justified. But, the goods were not available for confiscation and, confiscation of goods and imposition of fine was not proper and legal. As the demand of duty and confiscation of goods are not sustainable, imposition of penalties on the appellants are not warranted.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty of equal amount of duty as determined on 5.867MT Zinc Scrap found short as per Panchnama dated 27/ 28.04.2005 are upheld, and all other demand of duties along with interest, confiscation and imposition of fine and penalties are set-aside. As the adjudicating authority had not given an option to pay penalty of 25% of the duty, within thirty days along with duty and interest from the date of receipt of adjudication order as per Section 11AC (i) of the Act, the assessee is given an option, to pay the penalty 25% of the duty alongwith duty and interest on 5.867MT of Zinc scrap, within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to which, the assessee shall pay the penalty of equal amount of duty as determined. All the appeals filed by the appellants, except M/s. Asia Metals (i.e. assessee) are allowed. The appeal filed by M/s. Asia Metals, Appellant No.1 is disposed of in the above terms.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.03.2015) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL 2