Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Addis Marketing vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 4 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. ST/566/11 [Arising out of Order-in- Original No.26/KLG/Th-II/2011 dated 12/7/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Addis Marketing
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. R.G. Sheth, Advocate with Puloma Dalal. C.A. and Ms. Pinky, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. A.K. Goswami, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) Date of hearing: 4/5/2016 Date of decision: /2016 ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant are rendering services of Promotion and Marketing of Car Loan and Personal Loan. They were appointed as a Direct Sales Agent(DSA) by HDFC Bank for providing service to the customers in order to seeking loan from the bank for purchase of motor vehicle as well as personal loan and were advertising and getting prospective customers for the bank for which they were getting commission from the bank. As per Revenue the said service falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Services which have been introduced from 1/7/2003, but appellant failed to pay service tax on the said services. Apart from above services of Business Auxiliary services, the appellant also received Commission for the sales of car from car dealer/manufacturer, thus acted as a commission Agent. Such activity is also covered under the category of Business Auxiliary Services by virtue of Notification No. 8/2004-ST dated 9/7/2004, the exemption has been withdrawn and the commission agent require to pay service tax from 9/7/2004. In view of the above observations, the show cause notice was issued demanding service tax on the commission received from the bank for the period 1/7/2003 to May 2005 for an amount of Rs. 76,05,431/-. In respect of commission received towards sales of the car, demanded of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,42,114/- was also proposed. In the adjudication it was held that services provided to the bank towards sale of loan to various customers is classified under Business Auxiliary Services and the service tax demand was confirmed. Similarly, in respect of commission received towards sales of vehicle was classified as commission under Business Auxiliary Services and the service tax demand thereon was confirmed, in additionm the penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 were also imposed. Aggrieved by the adjudication order the appellant is before us.
3. Shri. R.G. Sheth, Ld. Advocate with Puloma Dalal. C.A. and Ms. Pinky, Advocate for the appellant at the outset submit that on the same services there was serious confusion and matter had been taken to the litigation in various cases before various benches of tribunal. On the identical issue the matter even was referred to the larger bench and Larger bench in the case of Pagaria Auto Centre Vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Aurangabad[2014(33) STR 506 (Tri. LB)] decided the issue. The confusion was prevailing whether the services of promotion and marketing of loan of the bank and financial institution would fall under the Business Auxiliary Services or under Business Support of Service. In view of this confusion, since various judgments passed by this Tribunal, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. He also submits that the appellant has not suppressed the transaction of commission received from the bank, the same was retrieved from books of account of the appellant. In this circumstances suppression of facts does not exist, hence the extended period was wrongly invoked. Since there was a confusion about the classification of the services of commission of promotion of loan received from the bank, the board also issued clarification vide its circular dated 6th Nov, 2006. In this circular the question was framed whether the commission received by automobile dealers from banks/non banking financial companies (NBFC) for introducing customer seeking finances/loans to such bank/NBFCs subject to service tax. By this circular, it was clarified the said service shall be taxable and will be classified under Business Auxiliary Service. From above clarification of the board, it is evident that the issue of taxability of the service in question was not free from doubt therefore extended period should not be invoked. It is also settled law that when there are conflicting views on particular legal issue and if the matter is referred to the larger bench that itself shows that issue involved is of interpretation of law and therefore extended period cannot be invoked. He also submits that on the identical case this Tribunal in various judgments though held that services is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Services but at the same time it was held that extended period cannot be invoked. He placed reliance on the following judgments:
(a) Bridgestone Financial Services Vs. Commr of S.T. Bangalore[2007(8) STR 505(Tri. Mum)]
(b) Roshan Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut[2009(13)STR 667(Tri. Del)]
(c) City Motors & Financial Services Vs. CCE, Gurgaon[2012(25) STR 449(Tri. Del)]
(d) South City Motors Ltd Vs. Commr. Of S.T. Delhi[2012(25) STR 483( Tri.Delh)]
(e) Brij Motors Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Kanpur[2012(25) STR 489(Tri. Del.]
(f) Commr. Of C. Ex. Cus & S.T. Vs. Charak Pharma P. Ltd[2012(278) ELT 319(Guj)]
(g) Gemini Mobiles Pvt Ltd Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. And S.T. Lucknow[2015-TIOL-15670-CESTAT-ALL]
(h) Board Circular No. 87/05/2006-ST dated 6/11/2006.
He further submits that adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on the basis of data collected from HDFC bank towards commission accounted for in relation to the appellants transaction. He submits that entire amount shown by the bank in their books was not received by the appellant. As per the prevailing law at material time only actual amount received towards services can only be chargeable to service tax. Therefore the amount of commission received from the bank and accounted for in the books of account of the appellant will only be chargeable to the service tax therefore quantification made in the show cause notice as well as confirmation of demand of the same amount is incorrect. As regard the Business Auxiliary Services provided for sale of vehicle, he submits that it is purely a service of Business Auxiliary services and the same was exempted vide Notification No. 14/04-ST dated 10/09/2004 till 16/6/2005 for the reason that the appellant is proprietary concern which was exempted under the said notification. He placed reliance on the decision of Jain Marketing Vs. Commr. Of S.T. Chennai[2011(21) S.T.R. 532(Tri. Chennai)].
4. Shri. A.K. Goswami, Ld. Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that appellant has not filed ST3 returns accordingly department was unaware about the activity of the appellant hence there is suppression of fact on their part and extended period rightly invoked. In support of his submission he placed reliance on judgment of this Tribunal in case of Jai Bharat Automobiles Ltd Vs. Commr. Of Service Tax, Mumbai[2015-TIOL-1570-CESTAT-MUM].
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record.
6. We find that as regard the admissibility of the services of promotion and marketing loans and finances on behalf of the bank and non banking financial institution in various judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, the Larger Bench of this tribunal as well as Board Circular dated 16/11/2006 it has been settled that service provided by the appellant to HDFC bank is classifiable as Business Auxiliary Services and liable for service tax. However as regard the submission on limitation, we observed that as per the confusion and doubt prevailing in respect of impugned service, the appellant entertained the bonafide belief that whether any service provided to HDFC bank is classifiable under Business Auxiliary services or Business Support Services. As regard the Business Support Service it became taxable only from 1/5/2006, even there were some judgments wherein it was held that the identical services is of Business Support Service therefore it cannot be said that the appellant has intentionally avoided the payment of service tax. The issue was not free from doubt as even the board also realized and issued a circular dated 6/11/2006 by which it was clarified that the services in question will fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and thus it is taxable. Ld. Counsel cited various judgments wherein on identical services the tribunal has taken consistent view that due to interpretation of classification of services extended period cannot be invoked. It is also observed that the issue being debatable and there were conflicting decision on the very same issue the matter was referred to the larger bench in case of Pagariya Auto Center(supra). It is settled law that where in the case, the issue involved is of interpretation of law, the extended period cannot be invoked. Therefore in the present case also all the circumstances are common as existing in various judgments which are reproduced below:
Bridgestone Financial Services
5.?We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Shri Sharath Reddy, Proprietor of the appellant has given a statement before the Superintendent, Central Excise on 20-9-2004 regarding the services rendered by his unit. He has enclosed copies of the agreement entered with M/s. Citi Bank N.A. M/s. Citi financial Retail Services India Ltd. A statement has also been taken from Shri Nazar Ali, General Manager on the same day. Shri Sharath Reddy has stated that he was given to understand that service tax is not applicable for the nature of business that he is doing. Service rendered by the appellant unit is sourcing customers for personal loans and housing loans on behalf of M/s Citibank N.A., and M/s. Citi Financial Retail Services India Ltd. The issues to be decided are the following :
(1) Under what category the services rendered by the appellant are liable to service tax in terms of Finance Act 1994?
(2) whether the show cause notice is time barred as contended by the appellants?
Even though the statements were taken on 20-9-2004, the show cause notice has been issued for the period from July 03 to June 04 only on 13-10-05. It is very clear that the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of one year. The learned advocate stated that after the statements have been taken and the records given on 20-9-2004, there was no further investigation by the department. He emphasized the point that there was no willful suppression with intent to evade payment of tax. He relied on a large number of decisions of the Apex Court cited (supra). From the statement of Sharath Reddy, it appears that the appellants were under a bonafide belief that service tax is not liable to be paid in respect of services rendered by them. There is no finding that there was willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of taxes. Even the show cause notice has not properly brought out the intent of the appellant to evade taxes by willful suppression of facts. In these circumstances, the extended period cannot be invoked. Thus the demand is hit by time bar. The appellants strongly contended that the services rendered by them would come only under the category of business support services which was introduced only with effect from 1-6-06. Since the period of demand is prior to 1-6-06, it was urged that the said services could not have been brought under the category of business auxiliary services. We reproduce the definition of business auxiliary services. (19)?business auxiliary service means any service in relation to,-
(i) promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or
(ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or
(iii) any customers care service provided on behalf of the client; or
(iv) any incidental or auxiliary support service such as billing collection or recovery of cheques, accounts and maintenance, evaluation of prospective customs & public relation services, as a Commission agent, but does not include any information technology service.
From the above, it is seen that promotion or marketing of services provided by the client also come under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that services provided by them would not come under the category of Business Auxiliary Service during the relevant period. The appellants actually source customers for Citibank, Citifinancial Retail Services for personal loans and housing loans. The actual agencies which provide the financial service by giving loans are Citibank and Citifinancial Retail Services. They are actually clients of the appellants. Since the appellants promote the services rendered by their clients, it is very clear that during the relevant period, the services rendered by the appellant would definitely fall within the category of Business Auxiliary services. However as far as the present case is concerned. This is only of academic importance as we have set aside the demand on account of time bar. In view of this we are not discussing the other issues raised by the appellant. In fine, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
Roshan Motors Ltd
3.?Relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :-
(a) The appellant is an authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and sell vehicles to various customers.
(b) The appellant has entered into agreements with financial companies like Kotak Mahendra Primus Ltd., ICICI Banks, and HDFC Bank for the purpose of arranging finance for the buyers of vehicles sold by them.
(c) Learned advocate submits that the representatives of these financial institutions are accommodated in the dealers premises itself. The prospective buyers are introduced by the appellant to the finance companies and help rendered in processing the documents and obtaining loan and then vehicles sold to them. For this role, the appellant is receiving service fees from the financing companies. The original authority [as well as Commissioner (Appeals)] have held that the service charges received by the appellant represents charges for business auxiliary service rendered by the appellant to the said finance companies and confirmed the service tax along with interest and imposed penalties under Section 76, 77 and, 78 of the Finance Act 1994.
.7.?The submission by the learned advocate that this is a case of interpretation of the taxing entry and no mala fide or element of suppression or mis-statement is involved and, therefore, imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 is not warranted is acceptable. In view of fact that the case involved interpretation of question of law, we hold that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. Therefore, penalties imposed are set aside.
City Motors & Financial Services The Appellants had entered into agreements with different banks such as ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Citi Bank and Non-Banking Companies (NBFCs) such as Maruti Finance, Maruti Countrywide and Citimobile Finance to market car-loan to potential customers. For loan taken by the customers, the appellants got commission from the banks or NBFCs. The issue in this appeal is whether service tax is to be paid on such commission categorizing the activity of the Appellants as business auxiliary service.
. 15.?The period involved in this appeal is prior to 10-9-2004. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 31-7-2007. This Appellant is paying service tax from 10-9-2004. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. In this case also the demand is raised beyond the time limit of one year and such demand cannot be sustained.
South City Motors Ltd The Appellants are dealers of Ford Motor vehicles and they had entered into agreements with different banks such as HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, ABN Amro Bank, Chartered Bank and Citi Bank and also with Non-Banking Financial Companies; (NBFCs) such as Ford Credit Kotak Mahindra Ltd. to market car-loan to potential customers. For loan taken by the customers, these appellants got commission from the banks and NBFCs. The issue in this appeal is whether service tax is to be paid on such commission categorizing the activity of the Appellants as business auxiliary service.
13.?The period involved in this appeal is prior to 10-9-2004. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 20-4-2006. The Appellant is paying service tax from 10-9-2004. This matter relates to scope of the entry for Business Auxiliary Services. There was considerable doubt about its coverage because of the very nature of the entry. There are contrary decisions of the Tribunal in the matter. In most of the decisions like Bridgestone Financial Service and Roshan Motors Ltd., Tribunal has taken the view that it is a case involving interpretation of the taxing entry and no mala fide or element of suppression or mis-statement is involved. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. In this case also the demand is raised beyond the time limit of one year and such demand cannot be sustained. However, demand if any, which is within the normal period of one year is sustainable. Interest is payable on such amount but no penalty is imposable.
Brij Motors Pvt Ltd
- The Appellants had entered into agreement with ICICI Bank to provide sourcing and referral business to promote market loan from the bank to potential customers by setting up ready to interact outlets in the premises of the Appellants who is in the primary business of selling automobiles. For loan taken by the customers, these appellants got commission from the bank. The issue in this appeal is whether service tax is to be paid on such commission categorizing the activity of the Appellants as business auxiliary service.
14.?The period involved in this appeal is 20-10-2004 to 18-12-2007. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 21-2-2008. As can be seen from the discussions above the matter was being interpreted by judicial forums in different ways as may be seen from the decisions quoted by the Appellants. The Higher Courts have been taking the view that in such situations the extended period of time cannot be invoked for raising demand. Even in the case of Bridgestone Financial Services the Tribunal has given the benefit for such reason. So we are of the view that the demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation. In such a situation penalties are not imposable either.
Charak Pharma P. Ltd
3.?The respondent herein is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. The dispute which was raised before the Tribunal is with regard to the assessable value of the physician sample packs distributed free of cost. The Tribunal has noted that on merits, this issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited, reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 245, with regard to the period involved, a show cause notice was issued on 11th June, 2008 and relying on the Tribunals decision in case of M/s. Marsha Pharma Private Limited, the demand was held barred by limitation. Seeking support from the order in case of M/s. Marsha Pharma, where the Bench has observed that the extended period would not be invoked in cases where the matter is referred to the Larger Bench and also discussed the effect of the Circular issued by the Board, the Tribunal held in the instant case that the demand is barred by limitation.
Gemini Mobiles Pvt Ltd
4. The issue whether the activities pursued or services provided by the dealers of motor vehicles in such circumstances fall within the ambit of BAS defined in Section 65(19) and enumerated to be a taxable service in Section 65(105)(zzb), was the subject matter of conflicting decisions. Some decisions ruled that such activities fall within BAS while other decisions ruled to the contrary.
5. The conflicts came up for consideration before a Larger Bench in Pagariya Auto Center vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad and the legal position was clarified by the order dated 12.9.2013 reported in 2014 (33) STR 506 (Tri-LB) = 2014-TIOL-141-CESTAT-DEL-LB . The Larger Bench answered the reference observing that the large number of decisions cited at the bar and in the order of reference to it, spelt out uniform principle to guide determination of whether a particular transaction involving an interface between an automobile dealer and a bank or a financial institution would per se amount to BAS. The Larger Bench clarified that identification of the transaction and its appropriate classification as BAS or otherwise must depend upon a careful analysis of the relevant transactional documents and only such scrutiny and analysis would ensure a rational classification of the transaction. The Tribunal pointed out that where mere space is provided along with furniture for facilitating accommodation of representatives of financial institutions in the premises of an automobile dealer and consideration is received for that singular activity, such consideration may perhaps constitute a rent for the provision of space and associated amenities and such transaction would not amount to BAS. Alternatively, held the Tribunal, if the transactional documents and other material on record indicate a substantial activity falling within the contours of any of the integers of the definition of BAS, spelt out in Section 65(19), then it would be legitimate to conclude that BAS is provided.
6. In the light of the Larger Bench ruling clarifying contours of BAS, in respect of transactions involving automobile dealers and banks or financial institutions, there was a bona fide doubt as to whether appellants herein had provided BAS during the relevant period in issue. Therefore non-filing of returns and non-remittance of tax for rendition of BAS could not be characterised as arising with a view to suppression of material facts or failure to remit tax with an intent to evade the same, inviting application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
7. The period in issue in the present appeals is July 2003 to November 2005. Show cause notice was issued on 31.1.2006. Only part of the period is therefore within the normal period of limitation. In the light of the fact that there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal which stood resolved by the Larger Bench decision in Pagariya Auto Center (supra), we are satisfied that invocation of the extended period was not justified. We so declared the position. The appellants are however liable to tax, interest and penalties for the normal period of limitation specified in Section 73.
8. We therefore set aside the respective orders-in-appeal, confirming the respective adjudication orders and remand the matter to the primary adjudicating authority for re-determination of the appellants' liability to tax, interest and penalties for the normal period of limitation, if at all, after proper classification of the transaction in issue in the light of the decision and clarifications issued in Pagariya Auto Center (supra) and after issuing notice to the appellants herein intimating the date for personal hearing. No costs.
Circular No. 87/05/2006-S.T., dated 6-11-2006 Authorised motor vehicle dealers and service stations It has been brought to the notice of the Board that certain doubts have arisen in respect to activities undertaken by authorized motor vehicle dealers and service stations. The issues are as mentioned below :-
(a)
(b)
(c)---
(d) Whether the commission received by the automobile dealers from Banks /Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC), for introducing the customers seeking finances / loans to such banks / NBFCs is to be subjected to service tax? Further, in case part of these incentives are passed on by the dealers to the customers, whether tax would be leviable only on that part of incentive, which is retained by the dealers or whether it would be on full amount?
--
4.?In some cases, the automobile dealers help the buyers of the vehicles for arranging the finances. For this, they have a tie-up with Banks / Non-banking Finance Companies. The customers are advised by the dealers to approach such financial companies for taking loans. The automobile dealers get commission from such financial companies for directing the customers to the latter. By this activity, the automobile dealers promote or market the services provided by their customer (i.e., the financial institution), and are therefore covered under taxable service, namely, the Business auxiliary service. The tax is payable on the gross commission received by the automobile dealer. In some cases, the dealers share part of their commission with their customers to attract them. However, this is an independent transaction between the automobile dealer and the purchaser of the vehicle, and does not involve the service rendered by the automobile dealer to the finance company. Therefore, the tax payable by the dealer would be on the gross amount received from the financial company and not on the balance amount, i.e., after excluding the amount that he passes on to the customer.
From the above decisions on identical issue, this tribunal consistently held that in respect of services in question in case of non payment of service tax the extended period is not invokable. In the present case the period involved is July,2003 to May, 2005 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 29/5/2006. As per the discussion made herein above extended period cannot be invoked therefore service tax demand upto March 2005 is hit by limitation therefore demand pertaining to the period July, 2003 to March , 2005 deserves to be set aside. As regard the demand for the period April and May, 2005 in respect of services provided to HDFC bank towards promotion and marketing of loan under Business Auxiliary Services, the same requires re-quantification on the ground that Adjudicating authority has not conclusively established that what is the actual receipt of service charges by the appellant during the period April, 2005 and May, 2005. As regard the services of sales commission in respect of sale of the vehicle for which demand of Rs. 1,42,114/- was confirmed, we find that appellant has claimed notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10/9/2004, which is reproduced below:
Service tax exemption to specified services in relation to Business auxiliary service In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable service provided to a client by a commercial concern in relation to the business auxiliary service, insofar as it relates to, -
(a) procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client;
(b) production of goods on behalf of the client;
(c) provision of service on behalf of the client; or
(d) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in (a) to (c) above.
from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act :
Provided that nothing in this notification shall apply to, -
(i) a factory registered under or governed by the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948);
(ii) a company established by or under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(iii) a partnership firm, whether registered or not registered;
(iv) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India;
(v) a co-operative society established by or under any law;
(vi) a corporation established by or under any law; or
(vii) a body corporate established by or under any law, unless such factory, company, partnership firm, society, co-operative society, corporation or body corporate, as the case may be, provides any business auxiliary service in respect of any activity specified in (a) to (d) above in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education.
We find that the appellant is proprietary concern therefore they are prima facie eligible for above referred exemption notification as the services is covered under provisions of services on behalf of client which is one of the services specified under the notification. However Ld. Adjudicating authority has not given any findings as regard the claim of this notification categorically made by the appellant before him. We are therefore of the view that eligibility of this Notification should be re-considered by the Adjudicating authority. As regard the penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78, we find that as per our above discussion on limitation, there is bonafide belief of the appellant for non payment of service tax, the appellant has been able to reasonable cause for invocation of Section 80. We are therefore of the view that considering the facts and circumstances as well as discussion made herein above with regard to the demand being time bar penalties under Section 76,77 and 78 require to be set aside invoking Section 80. As result we pass following order:
(a) Demand from July, 2003 to March, 2005 in respect of Business Auxiliary Services ( service relate to HDFC bank) is set aside being time bar.
(b) Service tax demand for April and May-2005 require to be re-quantified as per our above discussion by the Adjudicating authority.
(c) As regard the demand of Rs. 1,42,114/- relates to Business Auxiliary Service (Commission on sale of car) require to be re-considered applying the Notification No. 14/2004-ST by the adjudicating authority.
(d) Penalties imposed under Section 76, 77 and 78 are set aside.
Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
(Order pronounced in court on _____________) C.J. Mathew Member (Technical) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 21 ST/566/11