Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd. vs Cce Kolhapur on 14 January, 2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
COURT No. I
Excise Appeal No. 1000 of 2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 2/CEX/2010 dated 24.02.2010 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur)
M/s. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd. Appellant
B-16, Bhagwandas Nagar,
New Delhi 110 001.
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Respondent
Vasant Plaza, Rajaram Road,
Kolhapur 416 003.
Appearance:
S/Shri R.K. Verma with D.K. Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant
Ms. A.S. Parab, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for
the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NO. A/85040/2020
Date of Hearing: 05.12.2019
Date of Decision: 14.01.2020
PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA
This appeal is directed against the Order in Original No
2/CEX/2010 dtd 24.02.2010 of Commissioner Central Excise
Kolhapur. By the impugned order Commissioner held as follows:
(i) All the relevant bonds shall be enforced against M/s SRH if
the above amounts of duty as confirmed below are not paid
by them.
(ii) I, confirm the demand for Central Excise duty amounting to
Rs 3,15,73,845/- (Rs Three Crores Fifteen Lakhs Seventy
Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Five Only) under
the provisions of erstwhile provisions of Rule 13 of the C Ex
Rules, 1944 and or Rule 19 of the Central Excise (No 2)
2 E/1000/2010
Rules, 2001 and the provisions of Notification No 42/2001
CE(NT) dtd 26.06.2001 and the procedure laid down
thereto.
(iii) The Merchant Exporter should also pay the interest as
appropriate on such duty from the date of removal for
export from the place of procurement till the date of
payment of duty in terms of B-1 bond (General) read with
clause 2(v)(b) of Notification No 42/2001 CE (NT) dtd
26.06.2001 as amended, read with Section 11 (AB) of C Ex
Act, 1944.
(iv) I impose a penalty of Rs 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Lakhs only) on M/s Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) New
Delhi under the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise (No
2) Rules, 2001.
2.1 Appellant is a Merchant Exporter having "Star Trading
House" status. He has executed B-1 bond, as indicated in table
below for removal of sugar for export from various factories
located in various jurisdiction. Since they are "Star Trading
House", the bonds were executed without any security. The
quantum of sugar removed for export and quantum of duty
involved on such removals is also as indicated. Appellant was not
able to produce the "proof of export " within the period as
prescribed in respect of the goods cleared by them for export
without payment of duty as per Notification No 42/2001 CE (NT),
26.06.2001. The proceeding were initiated against them for
recovery of the duty not paid by them at the time of clearance of
sugar in term of the bond executed by them.
S Date/ Value of Name of Unit Quantity Duty
N Bond M/s Quintals forgone' Rs
1 11.06.2001/ Shree Sankar 64,929 55,18,965
1,30,00,000 SSK Ltd,
Sadashiv Nagar
2 11.06.2001/ S M S M P SSK 2,69,956 2,29,46,260
2,30,00,000 Ltd
3 31.08.2001/ Gadhinglaj 48,628 41,33,380
72,25,000 Taluka SSK Ltd.,
3 E/1000/2010
Harali
4 11.06.2001/ Krishna SSK Ltd 22,664 19,26,440
1,70,00,000 Rathre
5 24.04.2001/ Sant Tukaram 1,25,000 56,93,750
1,06,25,000 SSK
4 Total 3,83,513 3,25,98,605
2.2 Three show cause notices were issued to the appellant
asking them to show cause as to why-
i. Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs 55,18,965/- in
respect of sugar procured from Shree Shankar SSK Ltd
Sadashiv Nagar (SCN No V(17)15-58/Adj/P-II/02 dated
17.06.2002);
ii. Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs 2,29,46,260/- in
respect of sugar procured from S M S M P SSK Ltd (SCN
No V(17)15-57/Adj/P-II/02 dated 17.06.2002);
iii. Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs 41,33,380/- in
respect of sugar procured from Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK
Ltd., Harali (SCN No V(17)15-57/Adj/P-II/02 dated
12.07.2002);
iv. Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs 19,26,440/- in
respect of sugar procured from Krishna SSK Ltd Rathre
(SCN No VGN (19)1/ SRHIL/02 dated 09.08.2002);
v. Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs 56,93,750/- in
respect of sugar procured from Sant Tukaram SSK Ltd.
(SCN NO VIII/CUS/POE/2001 04.08.2003);
a. should not be recovered from them;
b. interest in terms of the General B1 Bond read with clause
2(v)(b) of Notification No 42/2001-CE (NT) should not be
recovered from them;
c. penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
read with Section 38A and Rule 26 of the Central Excise
(No. 2) Rules, 2001 should not be imposed on them.
2.3 First four Show Cause Notices were earlier adjudicated
twice. By Order in Original No 7/CEX/07 dated 23.03.2007, in
respect of these four show causes, the demand of duty of Rs
2,09,48,84/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty of Rs
4 E/1000/2010
2,09,48,845/-. Against this order Appellant preferred the appeal
before CESTAT along with the application for pre-deposit in
terms of Section 35F. CESTAT vide its order No
5/654/207/CI(EB) dated 03.09.2007 directed them to make a
pre-deposit of Rs 50 Lakhs. Against this order of CESTAT,
appellant filed appeal before Mumbai High Court. Mumbai High
Court has vide its order dated 29.02.2008 held as follows:
"2. Similarly by another order of 31st December, 2005
pertaining to another sugar factory (in respect of other than 3
sugar factories which are subject matter of the earlier appeal)
set aside the order with the direction to obtain decision of the
Board and thereafter to proceed in the matter.
3. The Board thereafter by its Order No. 17/2006-Central
Excise dated 16th June, 2006 directed consolidation of four show
cause notices as set out in the order.
Grievance of the petitioners is that the Board has not
consolidated all the show cause notices which were required to
be consolidated so that an effective order could be passed. We
now find that in respect of the show cause notice issued to M/s.
Sant Tukaram S.S.K. Ltd., Kasarsai it is kept in the D.C. Pune
Division and in case of M/s. Daulat S.S.K. Ltd., the documents
are kept pending with A.C. (Bond) Mumbai - for finalization of
proof of export order of consolidation is yet to be passed.
In case any other show cause notices are pending relatable to
the issue we direct the petitioners herein to apply to the Board
for consolidation of these show cause notices also with the show
cause notice already consolidated by the order dated 16th June,
2006. We are informed that there are two other show cause
notices. The decision to be taken as early as possible on the
petitioners so applying.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that for the purpose of
showing that in fact the goods had been exported they would
require the documents in respect of the sugar factories which
have participated in the export proceedings and as such these
documents should be made available to them when the show
cause notices are being adjudicated. We find that the request is
5 E/1000/2010
reasonable. We, therefore, direct the respondents and the
Adjudicating Officer to call for the record and proceedings which
the petitioners may apply for in the proceedings before the A.O.
so as to enable the petitioner to establish their case. It will be
open to the petitioners to apply for documents from the
proceedings for the purpose of producing them before the A.O.
in support of their contention.
5. Considering the above the impugned order dated 3rd
September, 2007 is set aside and consequent by the order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23rd March, 2007 is also set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of
Central Excise, Pune II, to proceed with the matter in terms of
what we have aforestated.
6. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune II, before whom the
four show cause notices have been consolidated to proceed in
the matter after the Board passes the order on the
representation made by the petitioners herein. Such
representation to be made within four weeks from today."
2.4 In terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court Order, Central Board of Excise and Customs has vide
its order dated 11th August 2008, along with earlier four show
cause notice consolidated for adjudication by Commissioner
Central Excise Pune - II (Order dated 16th June 2006), directed
consolidation of the Show Cause Notices issued in respect of the
clearances made from Sant Tukaram SSK and Daulat SSK. Since
no notice was issued in respect of the clearance made from
Daulat SSK, the show cause notice issued in respect of Sant
Tukaram SSK was also taken up for hearing and adjudication by
the Commissioner Central Excise Pune-II.
2.5 Since the main grievance of the appellants in earlier
proceedings before all the authority was that during the period
under consideration they had exported sugar cleared not only
from these unit, but from 13 units located in Maharashtra, and
hence the clearances made from all the thirteen units should be
taken into record and reconcile. Accordingly Commissioner has
6 E/1000/2010
considered the documents pertaining to all the 13 units. He
records in para 3 of the order as follows:
"I have considered the documents pertaining to the
clearances of sugar from all the 13 units mentioned by
M/s SRH while passing the order."
2.6 Commissioner ahs in para 5 of the impugned order
recorded as follows:
"5 The above five show cause notices are issued because of
irreconcible deficiencies and discrepancies between the various
documents namely AR-4/ARE-1, Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading,
Invoices, Bank Realization Certificate etc. which have been
produced by the noticee for acceptance of proof of export.
Broadly, these discrepancies can be categorized as under:
(i) Original and duplicate AR-4/ ARE-I with the Customs
endorsement not produced.
(ii) The country of destination shown in the AR4/ARE-I and
shipping bills are not tallying.
(iii) The sugar was removed from the factory in 100 Kgs. Bags
but the shipping documents shown the shipment in 50
Kgs bags.
(iv) Date of shipment/ let export in the shipping document is
prior to date of ARE-I which is physically impossible.
(v) The shipping bill and the other shipping documents show
procurement of the sugar from other Commissionerates
than the Commissionerate in whose jurisdiction the sugar
factory is located.
(vi) In case of some clearances from Sant Tukaram SSK, the
sugar which was shown to have been exported was found
to have been loaded on to railway wagons for direct
shipment to Pakistan, but the AR-$ which the exporter
claimed to relate shipment was cleared from the factory
nearly a month earlier.
(vii) AR-4 does not contain the country of export or the marks
and nos on the packages so they cannot be matched with
the shipping bills.
7 E/1000/2010
(viii) Quantity indicated in AR-4 does not tally with the quantity
in shipping bill.
(ix) Date of Bank Realization Certificate is prior to the date of
export.
(x) Bill of lading or Mate Receipts or both not produced."
2.6 After considering the documents produced and the
submissions made by the appellant in respect of each of the
issue specified above, Commissioner has vide the impugned
order referred in para 1, supra adjudicated the matter.
2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned order, appellants are in appeal
before CESTAT.
3.1 We have heard Shri R K Verma and Shri D K Singh,
Advocates for the appellants and Ms A S Parab, Assistant
Commissioner, Authorized Representative for revenue.
3.2 Arguing for the Appellants learned Advocate submitted
that:-
There was absolutely no diversion of the goods cleared for
export from the various factories located in Maharashtra.
These goods were actually exported, however these
demands are made for the reason that these exports have
not been duly supported by the proper proof of export.
All ARE-1s which are under dispute and all other ARE-1s
are duly endorsed by the Customs Officer at the port of
export. In some cases ARE-1s are perfectly correct and in
some cases the endorsements are made under which the
quantity cleared from factories under relevant ARE-1s an
SBs do not tally. However the fact is that these ARE-1s
were produced before the Custom Officer hand have been
duly endorsed by him certifying the actual export.
Whatever goods were cleared for Mumbai Port under ARE-
1s of different Sugar Mills were ultimately exported under
198 SBS (197 from Mumbai + 1 from Amritsar under
which destination has been changed to Pakistan). On
comparison of the gods cleared under these ARE-1s and
exported under 198 Shipping Bills, only the 272 MT cannot
8 E/1000/2010
be reconciled (approx 220 Grams per Quintal) which is due
to handling wastage during re-packing of the same.
Band Realization Certificate (BRC) has also been produced
in respect of 196 SBs and only in respect of two SBs
accounting for 350 MT the BRC are not available and not
produced.
Demand has been confirmed under Annexure "A" of
impugned OIO on the basis of non production of Original
copy of Original and Duplicate ARE-1s, photocopies of
same duly by Customs have been produced. Hon'ble
Mumbai High Court has in the matter of M/s U M Cables
[2013 (293) ELT 641 (Bom)] held that demand could not
have confirmed merely for the reason that original of
original and duplicate copy of ARE-1s have not been
produced.
Demand has been confirmed under Annexure "B" of
impugned OIO on the basis that the ARE-1s were endorsed
with the SBs which were prior to the date of clearance of
sugar from the factory, which is not possible and in some
cases Excise Commissionerate of goods cleared were
shown as Hyderabad under the relevant SBs. Though it's a
fact that goods could not have been exported prior to the
clearance of the goods from the factory, but it is also true
that the endorsement has been made by the Customs
Officer. The goods were unloaded at the port and re
packed in 50 kg bags from the original packing of 100 kgs
the identification of the goods factory wise was not
possible as sugar got mingled with the sugar cleared from
other factories. Thus only option was to make
endorsement on the basis of First in First Out (FIFO) basis
but such criteria was not adopted which resulted in such
mis match. They had submitted that there was no
clearance of sugar from the factories located in Hyderabad
and the same is mistakenly mentioned on the shipping bills
in EDI system.
Demand has been confirmed under Annexure "C" of
impugned OIO on the basis that the quantity in SBs which
9 E/1000/2010
was endorsed on the back of ARE-1s was more than the
quantity cleared under ARE-1s, and on some shipping bills
clearance of goods was mentioned as Hyderabad
Commissionerate which have been endorsed on the ARE-
1s. The goods were not exported ARE-1 wise, and in
number of cases the shipping bill covered number of ARE-
1s. The total quantity of these ARE-1s is vice versa tallied
with the quantity of SBs and in some cases do not.
Commissioner has confirmed the demand in respect of
those cases were the quantity matched. In their view the
only option was to make endorsement on the basis of First
in First Out (FIFO) basis but such criteria was not adopted
which resulted in such mis match. They had submitted that
there was no clearance of sugar from the factories located
in Hyderabad and the same is mistakenly mentioned on
the shipping bills in EDI system.
On the basis of above mis matches demand has been
confirmed against them. In case of Formica India [1995
(77) ELT 51 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Once the
Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on
the intermediary product and they would have been
entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with
the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to
permit them to do so rather than denying to them the
benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when
they could have done so had elapsed and they could not
be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had
passed."
They would also rely on the decisions as follows in their
support
o Continental Cement Company[2014 (309) ELT 411
(ALL)]
o Arya Fibres Pvt Ltd [2014 (311) ELT 529 (T-Ahmd)]
o Model Buckets & attachments (P) Ltd [2007 (217)
ELT 284 (T-Bang)] affirmed at {2014 (300) ELT 510
(Kar)]
10 E/1000/2010
They are in possession of SBs and BRC evidencing the
exports. Adjudicating authority has himself recorded that
the goods were repacked at the port, thus admits that the
goods had reached the port.
Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of Suksha International &
Nutan Gems & Anr [1989 (39) ELT 503 (SC)] and A V
Narasimhalu [1983 (13) ELT 1534 (SC)] stated the
administrative authorities should instead of relying on
technicalities, act in a manner with broader concept of
justice.
In interest of justice the matter should be remanded back
to adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
3.3 Arguing for the revenue learned Authorized Representative
while reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order
submitted that:-
From 2002 onwards it has been the strategy of the
appellant's to moot for tallying the total quantity of white
sugar procured from 13 mills in Maharashtra against the
total quantity of white sugar procured from 13 Mills in
Maharashtra against the total quantity of sugar exported
as per rte shipping bills submitted by them. Throughout it
has been their submission throughout that the total
quantity of sugar exported by them as per these shipping
bills tally with the sugar cleared by them from various
factories located in Maharashtra as per the ARE-1s;
Proofs of Export in respect of sugar cleared from 7
factories in Maharashtra have already been accepted by
the department and are not subject/ concern of the
present proceedings. These proceeding concern 6 factories
in respect of which the proper proof of export has not been
furnished.
The contention of the appellant is not acceptable, as the
documents do not match and shipping Bills contain
declared jurisdiction of other Commissionerates. In such a
situation the abstract claim of appellants cannot be
11 E/1000/2010
validated in any manner and also the it may not be
possible administratively to cause such verification.
To accept gross, cumulative quantity matching of S/Bs
with AR4s, without details even matching, is not the
procedure and will amount to gross violation of the
conditions of notification No 42/2001-CE (NT) r/w Rule 13
of Central Excise Rules, 1944 / Rule 19 of Central Excise
Rules, 2001, paras 13.2 and para 13.7 of the Chapter 7 of
Part 1, Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2001.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has constantly in series of
decisions rendered by them held that "It is an equally well
known principle that a person who claims an exemption
has to establish his case."
o Novopan India Ltd [1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC)];
o Parle Exports (P) Ltd [1989 (1) SCC 345];
o Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd [1995 (77)
ELT 474 (SC)]
o Dilip Kumar & Company [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)]
Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Mihir Textiles Ltd
[1997 (92) ELT 9 (SC)] held as follows:
"..... This is not a case where a certain provision is
mandatory or directory. Here the question is whether
concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the
satisfaction of certain conditions can be granted without
compliance of such conditions. No matter even if the
conditions are only directory."
In view of the above submissions there is no merits in the
submissions made by the appellants to the effect that the
benefit of exemption under Notification No 42/2001-CE
(NT) should be admissible to them by tallying the entire
quantity exported against the Shipping Bills produced by
them which tallies with the total quantity of sugar cleared
from the 13 different sugar mills located in Maharashtra.
4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the
submissions made in appeal, during the course of arguments and
in written submissions filed.
12 E/1000/2010
4.2 The three annexures as per which the demand has been
confirmed against the appellant by the adjudicating authority are
reproduced below:
Annexure A
(to the OIO No 2/CEX/2010 in r/o of M/s Shivnath Rai
Harnarain, New Delhi) List of AR-4/ ARE-1 whose original and
Duplicate copies endorsed by Customs officer not produced in
respect of-
S AR-4/ ARE-1 No/ Quantity Removed ' Duty Demanded
No Date Qtls 'Rs
(a) M/s S M S M P SSK Ltd
1 14/15.07.2001 9970 8,47,450
2 15/16.07.2001 7481 6,35,885
3 20/23.07.2001 8140 6,91,900
4 24/28.07.2001 11440 9,72,400
5 37/14.08.2001 7640 6,49,400
Total 37,97,035
(b) M/s Shankar SSK Ltd
1 6/02.07.2001 6790 5,77,150
2 7/03.07.2001 8210 6,97,850
3 8/19.07.2001 810 68,850
4 9/20.07.2001 6840 5,81,400
5 10/21.07.2001 8830 7,50,550
6 11/22.07.2001 3520 2,99,200
Total 29,75,000
(c) M/s Gadhinglaj SSK Ltd
1 20/06.09.2001 14300 12,15,500
2 21/07.09.2001 12610 10,71,850
3 26/20.09.2001 1790 1,52,150
4 27/21.09.2001 5420 4,60,700
5 28/22.09.2001 7270 6,17,950
6 29/23.09.2001 7060 6,00,100
7 30/24.09.2001 178 15,130
Total 41,33,380
Annexure A - Grand Total (a) + (b) + (c) = 1,09,05,415/-
13 E/1000/2010
Annexure B
(to the OIO No 2/CEX/2010 in r/o of M/s Shivnath
Rai Harnarain, New Delhi) List of AR-4/ ARE-1 where
particulars do not match the Shipping Documents-
Quantit Discrepancies
S y Duty
N AR-4/ ARE- Remove Demand
o 1 No/ Date d ' Qtls ed 'Rs
(a) M/s S M S M P SSK Ltd
1 2/17.06.200 552 4,69,200 The shipping bill
1 No 5148726
dated
18.06.2001
indicated that
the sugar was
originally
procured from
the jurisdiction
of Division VI
Hyderabad - I
Commissionerate
2 3/18.06.200 291 2,47,350 The shipping bill
1 No 5148727
dated
18.06.2001
indicated that
the sugar was
originally
procured from
the jurisdiction
of Hyderabad
Commissionerate
.
3 7/23.06.200 849 7,21,650 The shipping bill 1 No 5148726 dated 18.06.2001 14 E/1000/2010 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division 1 Hyderabad Commissionerate . Further the actual removal of the sugar from the registered factory was on 23.06.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill No 5145341 dated 04.06.2001 indicated that the shipment of the consignment on 11.06.2001.
The Mate Receipt
No 46 dated
21.06.2001
indicated the
date of receipt of
the consignment
on Board the
vessel on
21.06.2001.
4 8/25.06.200 651 5,53,350 The actual
1 removal of the
sugar from the
registered
15 E/1000/2010
factory was on
25.06.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill No 5145160
dated
04.06.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 08.06.2001.
The Mate Receipt
No 46 dated
21.06.2001
indicated the
date of receipt of
the consignment
on Board the
vessel on
16.06.2001.
5 21/24.07.20 198.7 1,68,895 The shipping bill 01 No 5157333 dated 26.07.2001 and 5153885 dated 10.07.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Division VII of Pune - I Commissionerate and as per the details available on shipping bill 16 E/1000/2010 No 5153885 dated 10.07.2001 the actual shipment was taken place on 12.07.2001.
The relevant
Mate Receipt No
3701 dated
17.07.2001
indicated the
date of receipt of
the consignment
on Board the
vessel on
17.07.2001.
6 25/29.07.20 922.7 7,84,295 The actual
01 removal of the
sugar from the
registered
factory was on
29.07.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill No 5156864
dated
23.07.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 24.07.2001.
Mate Receipt not
produced
7 32/09.08.20 1167.3 9,92,205 The actual
01 removal of the
sugar from the
registered
17 E/1000/2010
factory was on
09.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill No 5147417
dated
26.07.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 27.07.2001.
The Mate Receipt
No 1835 dated
03.08.2001
indicated the
date of receipt of
the consignment
on Board the
vessel on
03.08.2001.
8 35/12.08.20 632 5,37,200 The shipping bill 01 No 5140660 dated 16.05.2001 and 5157332 dated 27.07.2001 indicated that the sugar was originally procured from the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Commissionerate . Further the removal of the sugar from the registered 18 E/1000/2010 factory was on 12.08.2001 whereas the relevant shipping bill indicated that the shipment of the consignment had taken place on 26.07.2001 and 07.08.2001 respectively.
9 36/13.08.20 898 7,63,300 As per AR-4 the 01 export destination was shown a Pakistan but as per the shipping bill No 5159832 dated 03.08.2001 the consignment originally exported to Malaysia.
Further the
actual removal
of the sugar
from the
registered
factory was on
13.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
19 E/1000/2010
had taken place
on 06.08.2001.
10 39/16.08.20 40 34,000 The actual
01 removal of the
sugar from the
registered
factory was on
16.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill No 5159832
dated
03.08.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 03.08.2001.
11 40/21.08.20 1183 10,05,550 The actual
01 removal of the
sugar from the
registered
factory was on
21.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill No 5158070
dated
27.07.2001 and
5159832 dated
03.08.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 28.07.2001
and 06.08.2001
respectively
12 41/22.08.20 782.8 6,65,380 The actual
20 E/1000/2010
01 removal of the
sugar from the
registered
factory was on
22.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill No 5162477
dated
18.08.2001 and
5162468 dated
18.08.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 18.08.2001
and 21.08.2001
respectively
Total 69,42,375
(b) M/s Shankar SSK Ltd
1 3/19.06.200 389 3,30,650 The shipping bill
1 No 5148726
dated
18.06.2001
indicated that
the sugar was
originally
procured from
the jurisdiction
of Division VI
Hyderabad - I
Commissionerate
2 12/04.08.20 331 2,81,350 The actual
01 removal of sugar
from the
registered
factory was on
21 E/1000/2010
04.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill Nos 5140660
dated
16.05.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on 26.07.2001.
Further the
relevant shipping
bill indicated
that the sugar
was originally
procured from
the jurisdiction
of Division I
Hyderabad - I
Commissionerate
3 13/05.08.20 433 3,68,050 The actual
01 removal of sugar
from the
registered
factory was on
05.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill Nos 5140660
dated
16.05.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on
26.07.2001.Furt
her the relevant
22 E/1000/2010
shipping bill
indicated that
the sugar was
originally
procured from
the jurisdiction
of Division I
Hyderabad
Commissionerate
4 14/06.08.20 228.9 1,94,565 The actual
01 removal of sugar
from the
registered
factory was on
06.08.2001
whereas the
relevant shipping
bill Nos 5140660
dated
16.05.2001
indicated that
the shipment of
the consignment
on
26.07.2001.Furt
her the relevant
shipping bill
indicated that
the sugar was
originally
procured from
the jurisdiction
of Division I
Hyderabad
Commissionerate
11,74,615
23 E/1000/2010
(c) M/s Gadhinglaj SSK Ltd
1 11/12.04.20 1200 10,20,000 Let export
01 allowed on the S
B is 07.04.2001
and the sugar
removed from
factory on
12.04.2001
2 12/13.04.20 1066.4 9,06,440 Let export
01 allowed on the S
B is 07.04.2001
and the sugar
removed from
factory on
13.04.2001
Total 19,26,440
Annexure B - Grand Total (a) + (b) + (c) = 1,00,43,430/-
Annexure B (to the OIO No 2/CEX/2010 in r/o of M/s Shivnath Rai Harnarain, New Delhi) Showing mis match between Shipping documents and AR-4/ ARE-1 Sri Sant Tukaram SSK Ltd Part-II (List of Shipping Bills AR-4 wise) Sr S Bill No/ Quantity AR-4 No/ Quantity BRC Date Remark if No Date as per of Sugar Date indicated any AR-4 as S/Bill in AR-4 MT MT 1 5148727/ 850 1/ 2.5.01 250 9.8.01 Hyderabad 18.06.2001 2 546813/ 1884.8 4/ 9.5.01 203 17.7.01 Hyderabad 1 11.06.2001 8/ 304 10.5.01 10/ 293 12.5.01 33/ 249 24 E/1000/2010 25.5.01 3 2120/ 1000 2/ 7.5.01 94 4.6.01 --
13.6.2001 3/ 8.5.01 326
5/ 9.5.01 253
6/ 224.5
10.5.01
13/ 401.8
13.5.01
37/ 85.5
27.5.01
38/ 500
27.5.01
4 5149948/ 1000 7/ 512 17.7.2001 --
22.6.2001 10.5.01
5 1000020063/ 200 9/ 600 12.7.2001 --
30.4.2001 11.5.01
6 1000020082/ 200 8.6.2001 --
30.4.2001
7 1000020084/ 200 7.6.2001 --
30.4.2001
8 5145160/ 1000 11/ 568 17.7.2001 --
4.6.2001 12.5.01
9 5145339/ 1000 17.7.2001
4.6.2001
10 5150696/ 1000 17.7.2001
26.6.2001
11 5155341/ 1000 17.7.2001
4.6.2001
12 5145339/ 1000 12/ 280 17.7.2001 Pune-II
4.6.2001 13.5.01
39/ 687
29.5.01
13 5157194/ 1000 14/ 155 8.9.2001 --
24.7.2001 14.5.01
16/ 193
15.5.01
25 E/1000/2010
36/ 247
26.5.01
41/ 227.8
30.5.01
14 5151328/ 400 15/ 390 31.7.2001 Pune-II
28.6.2001 14.5.01
15 5150139/ 500 17/ 640 1.9.2001 --
28.6.2001 15.5.01
16 5146814/ 860 18/ 262 25.6.2001 Pune-II
11.6.2001 16.5.01
19/ 596
16.5.01
17 5151329/ 500 20/ 312 30.8.01 Hyderabad
28.6.2001 17.5.01
24/ 201.5
19.5.01
18 5158702/ 1000 21/ 656 1.8.01 A'Nagar/
17.5.01 A'Bad
22/ 284
18.5.01
19 5154610/ 900 23/ 49.7 30.8.01 --
13.7.2001 18.5.01
31/ 234
23.5.01
35/ 247
26.5.01
20 51406662/ 1000 25/ 237 25.6.01 --
16.5.2001 20.5.01
26/ 384
20.5.01
28/ 298
21.5.01
29/ 105
22.5.01
40/ 35
30.5.01
26 E/1000/2010
42/ 25.2
31.5.01
21 5150869/ 230 27/ 187 10.7.01 Sholapur/
27.6.2001 21.5.01 Pune
22 5162519/ 1000 30/ 483 18.4.01 Sholapur/
18.8.2001 22.5.01 Pune
23 5150868/ 230 18/ 262 10.7.01 Sholapur/
27.6.2001 16.5.01 Pune
19/ 596
16.5.01
32/ 46
24.5.01
34/ 223
25.5.01
Total Quantity Removed for Export: 12500 MT Duty Involved Rs 1,06,25,000/-
4.3 The goods are allowed clearance from the factory of manufacturer for exports in terms of Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. The Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is pari materia to Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001. The said rule reads as follows:
"19. Export without payment of duty .-
(1) Any excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Commissioner.
(2) Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture or processing of goods which are exported, as may be approved by the Commissioner.
(3) The export under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be notified by the Board."
27 E/1000/2010 4.4 In terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, Board has issued notification No 42/2001-CE (NT) prescribing conditions, safeguards and procedure for allowing clearance of goods for export without payment of duty. The said relevant excerpts of the notification are reproduced below:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of rule 19 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby notifies the conditions and procedures for export of all excisable goods, except to Nepal and Bhutan without payment of duty from the factory of the production or the manufacture or warehouse or any other premises as may be approved by the Commissioner of Central Excise, namely: -
1. Conditions: -
1. that the exporter shall furnish a general bond in the Form specified in Annexure-I to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory, warehouse or such approved premises, as the case may be, or the Maritime Commissioner or such other officer as authorised by the Board on this behalf in a sum equal at least to the duty chargeable on the goods, with such surety or sufficient security, as such officers may approve for the due arrival thereof at the place of export and their export therefrom under Customs or as the case may be postal supervision. The manufacturer-exporter may furnish a letter of undertaking in the Form specified in Annexure-II in lieu of a bond.
2. that goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which these were cleared for export from the factory of the production or the manufacture or warehouse or other approved premises within such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Maritime Commissioner may in any particular case allow;
28 E/1000/2010
3. that when the export is from a place other than registered factory or warehouse, the excisable goods are in original packed condition and identifiable as to their origin;
4. that exports of mineral oil products falling under Chapter 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as stores for consumption on board of an aircraft on foreign run shall be subject to conditions and limitations, to be applied mutatis mutandis, as notified in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Notification No.40/2001-Central .Excise (N.T.) dated 26th June, 2001 issued under rule 18 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001.
2. Procedure: -
(i) Procedure for removal without payment of duty under this notification: -
(a) After furnishing bond, a merchant-exporter shall obtain certificates in Form CT-1 specified in Annexure-III issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory or warehouse or approved premises or Maritime Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Board on this behalf and on the basis of such certificate he may procure excisable goods without payment of duty for export by indicating the quantity, value and duty involved therein;
(b) the exporter who has furnished bond shall ensure that the debit in bond account does not exceed the credit available therein at any point of time;
(c) the manufacturer-exporter may remove the goods without payment of duty after furnishing the letter of undertaking as specified under condition (i).
(d) such General bond or letter of undertaking shall not be discharged unless the goods are duly exported, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Maritime Commissioner or such other officer as may be 29 E/1000/2010 authorised by the Board on this behalf within the time allowed for such export or are otherwise accounted for to the satisfaction of such officer, or until the full duty due upon any deficiency of goods, not accounted so, and interest, if any, has been paid.
(ii) Sealing of goods and examination at place of despatch. -
(a) .....;
(b) .....;
(c) ......;
(d) .....;
(e) ......
(iii) Dispatch of goods by self-sealing and self- certification. -
(a) ........;
(b) ........;
(c) ........;
(d) .......
(iv) Examination of goods at the place of export. -
(e) On arrival at the place of export, the goods shall be presented together with original, duplicate and quintuplicate (optional) copies of the application to the Commissioner of Customs or other duly appointed officer;
(f) The Commissioner of Customs or other duly appointed officer shall examine the goods with the particulars as specified in the application and if he finds that the same are correct and exportable in accordance with the laws for the time being in force, shall allow export thereof and certify on the copies of the application that the goods have been duly exported citing the shipping bill number and date and other particulars of export:
30 E/1000/2010 Provided that if the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise sealed packages or container at the place of despatch, the officer of customs shall inspect the packages or container with reference to declarations in the application to satisfy himself about the exportability thereof and if the seals are found intact, he shall allow export.
(g) The Commissioner of Customs or the other duly appointed officer shall return the original and quadruplicate (optional copy for exporter) copies of application to the exporter and forward the duplicate copy of application either by post or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover to the officer specified in the application, with whom the exporter has furnished bond or a letter of undertaking.
(h) The exporter shall use the quintuplicate copy for the purposes of claiming any other export incentive.
(v) Cancellation of applications:
(a) ..........;
(b) ..........
(vi) Procedure in respect of exported goods subsequently re-imported and returned to the factory:
(a) ........
(b) .........
Explanation I. - For the purpose of this notification, "merchant- exporter" mean any exporter who procures and exports excisable goods manufactured by any other person.
Explanation II. - ........
4.5 Appellants herein are merchant exporters and have cleared the goods (sugar) from various factories for export in terms of Rule 13 of Central Excise Rules, 194/ Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 after executing the required bond as per the Notification No 42/2001-CE (NT). They being Star Trading House 31 E/1000/2010 were not required to furnish required security against the bonds so executed. They had executed the bonds with relevant jurisdictional officers of Central Excise. In terms of the Notification 42/2001-CE (NT) and also in terms of the conditions specified in the bond, they had to furnish the proof of export of the goods cleared to the authority with whom the bond had been executed or were required to pay the duty on the goods with interest @ 24% in case of failure to furnish the proof of export in manner as has been prescribed by the Notification, to the satisfaction of bond accepting authority.
4.6 In the present case as directed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the matter of the exports under taken by the Appellants in respect of the goods cleared from various factories in Maharashtra was taken up by the common adjudicating authority appointed by the Board. The direction of the Bombay High Court is in respect of the consolidation of the proceedings initiated by various show cause notices in respect of the clearances made for export from the factories located in Maharashtra before common adjudicating authority. (Refer para 2.3 and 2.4, supra).
4.7 After considering the documents furnished by the appellant, adjudicating authority has demanded the duty in the cases where he was not satisfied with proof of export for the reasons as stated in the three Annexures to the impugned order reproduced in para 4.2 supra.
4.8 It is now settled position in law that any person claiming the benefit of an exemption notification is required to fulfill the conditions specified in the notification. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Dilip Kumar & Co [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] held as follows:
"25. We are not suggesting that literal rule de hors the strict interpretation nor one should ignore to ascertain the interplay between 'strict interpretation' and 'literal interpretation'. We may reiterate at the cost of repetition that strict interpretation of a statute certainly involves literal or plain meaning test. The other tools of interpretation, namely contextual or purposive 32 E/1000/2010 interpretation cannot be applied nor any resort be made to look to other supporting material, especially in taxation statutes. Indeed, it is well-settled that in a taxation statute, there is no room for any intendment; that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the notification. Equity has no place in interpretation of a tax statute. Strictly one has to look to the language used; there is no room for searching intendment nor drawing any presumption. Furthermore, nothing has to be read into nor should anything be implied other than essential inferences while considering a taxation statute.
27. Now coming to the other aspect, as we presently discuss, even with regard to exemption clauses or exemption notifications issued under a taxing statute, this Court in some cases has taken the view that the ambiguity in an exemption notification should be construed in favour of the subject. In subsequent cases, this Court diluted the principle saying that mandatory requirements of exemption clause should be interpreted strictly and the directory conditions of such exemption notification can be condoned if there is sufficient compliance with the main requirements. This, however, did not in any manner tinker with the view that an ambiguous exemption clause should be interpreted favouring the revenue. Here again this Court applied different tests when considering the ambiguity of the exemption notification which requires strict construction and after doing so at the stage of applying the notification, it came to the conclusion that one has to consider liberally.
52. To sum up, we answer the reference holding as under -
(1) Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification.
(2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity 33 E/1000/2010 cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue.
(3) The ratio in Sun Export case (supra) is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case (supra) stands overruled."
4.9 We are also not in agreement with the submissions made by the appellant that they are not able to co-relate the documents in view of the certain erroneous method adopted by the Customs Authority while endorsing the documents. In case of Mihir Textiles [1997 (92) ELT 9 (SC)] Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting such arguments stated the law as follows:
"11. Learned counsel for the appellant raised an alternative contention that the deficiency in the contract for obtaining the concessions should not have been taken so seriously and the Customs Authorities should have granted the reliefs as the appellants had performed their part in complying with the conditions. Non-compliance of the conditions, according to the counsel, was only due to the lapses on the part of the authorities concerned. This contention was expatiated to the extent that the conditions prescribed in the proviso to entry No. 84.66 are merely directory and not mandatory. According to the counsel, the conditions prescribed, if interpreted strictly, would result in the denial of concessional reliefs which statute has conferred on the citizen.
12. In support of that contention, counsel invited our attention to the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1958 SCR 533, wherein their Lordships were considering the implication of non-compliance with the conditions provided in Article 320(3) of the Constitution on an order imposing punishment to a Government servant without reference to the Public Service Commission. While considering that question learned Judges made a reference to the Privy Council decision in Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin - AIR 1917 PC 142 and the Federal Court decision in Biswanath Khemka v. Emperor - AIR 1945 FC 67. The Constitution Bench held that the provisions of Article 320(3) are 34 E/1000/2010 not mandatory and non-compliance of those provisions does not afford any cause of action in a court of law. Privy Council in the above quoted decision has observed that the question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative depends upon the object of the statute and no general rule can be laid down. "When the provisions of the statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory." This is not a case where a certain provision is mandatory or directory. Here the question is whether concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the satisfaction of certain conditions can be granted without compliance of such conditions. No matter even if the conditions are only directory.
13. In Formica India Division v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (SC), non-compliance with Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be insufficient to deny the benefit of a notification to the assessee. But the said benefit was afforded on the special circumstances of a case as could be seen from the following words :
"The circumstances in which the appellants did not pay the duty on the intermediary product before putting the same to the captive consumption for producing that stage, the appellants contested the correctness of the classification and had, therefore, not paid the duty on the intermediary product. When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A."
Nor can we find support from the ratio in B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. The Custodian & Others, JT 1997 (4) 15, that "infringements of the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulations Act prohibiting the banks from entering into 35 E/1000/2010 buy-back arrangements do not invalidate such contracts entered into between the banks and it's customers", as it involved a question of invalidation of the contract. Here neither the contract nor the import is invalid or illegal and the question is only whether the importer is entitled to the concessional duty."
4.10 Hon'ble Bombay High Court has in case of U M Cables [2013 (293) ELT 641 (Bom)] held as follows:
"15. In the situation in the two writ petitions, the rebate claims that were filed by the Petitioner would have to be duly bifurcated. As noted earlier the first writ petition [Writ Petition 3102 of 2013] relates to two claims dated 20 March, 2009 and 8 April, 2009 in the total value of Rs. 12.54 lacs. In respect of the second of those claims dated 8 April, 2009, of a value of Rs. 10.08 lacs, the Petitioner has averred that the goods were loaded by the Shipping Line on the vessel and the vessel sailed on 18 April, 2008 whereas the Let Export Order was passed by the customs authorities on 19 April, 2008. The Petitioner has stated that in view of this position the customs authorities withheld the endorsement of the ARE-1 forms and the issuance of the export promotion copy of the shipping bill [Paragraphs 8(g) and 8(h) of the petition]. We find merit in the contention of counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that in these circumstances, the rejection of the rebate claim dated 8 April, 2009 by the adjudicating authority and which was confirmed in appeal and in revision cannot be faulted. Admittedly even accordingly to the Petitioner the goods came to be exported and the vessel had sailed on 18 April, 2008 even before a Let Export Order was passed by the customs authorities. The primary requirement of the identity of the goods exported was therefore, in our view, not fulfilled. In such a case, it cannot be said that a fundamental requirement regarding the export of the goods and of the duty paid character of the goods was satisfied.
16. However, it is evident from the record that the second claim dated 20 March, 2009 in the amount of Rs. 2.45 lacs which forms the subject matter of the first writ petition and the three claims dated 20 March, 2009 in the total amount of Rs. 42.97 36 E/1000/2010 lacs which form the subject matter of the second writ petition were rejected only on the ground that the Petitioner had not produced the original and the duplicate copy of the ARE-1 form. For the reasons that we have indicated earlier, we hold that the mere non-production of the ARE-1 form would not ipso facto result in the invalidation of the rebate claim. In such a case, it is open to the exporter to demonstrate by the production of cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority that the requirements of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read together with the notification dated 6 September, 2004 have been fulfilled. As we have noted, the primary requirements which have to be established by the exporter are that the claim for rebate relates to goods which were exported and that the goods which were exported were of a duty paid character. We may also note at this stage that the attention of the Court has been drawn to an order dated 23 December, 2010 passed by the revisional authority in the case of the Petitioner itself by which the non-production of the ARE-1 form was not regarded as invalidating the rebate claim and the proceedings were remitted back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after allowing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September, 2004 [Order No. 1754/2010-CX, dated 20 December, 2010 of D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944]. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also placed on the record other orders passed by the revisional authority of the Government of India taking a similar view [Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 449] and Hebenkraft - 2001 (136) E.L.T.
979. The CESTAT has also taken the same view in its decisions in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 367, Model Buckets & Attachments (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 264 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. TISCO - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 777."
37 E/1000/2010 4.11 It is also a settled position that when law requires something to be done in particular manner then that has to be one in that manner only and all other method of doing are barred. Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Competent Authority vs Bangalore Jute Factory [(2005) 13 SCC 477] stated the law as follows:
"..........It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning........."
4.12 Since the issue involved is not in respect of clandestine clearance, but is in respect of the non submission of proof of export to the satisfaction of the bond accepting authority the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Continental Cables and tribunal in case of Arya Fibres and Model Buckets and Attachments relied upon by the appellant Counsel are distinguishable and not applicable. Since we find that decision of five member bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip Kumar & Co applicable to present case we are not in position to accept the submissions made by the appellant counsel relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Formica India Ltd, A V Narasimhalu and Suksha International & Nutan Gems.
4.13 In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Bombay High Court (para 15 of the order reproduced above) the view taken by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order in respect of Annexure B and C cannot be faulted with. However the view of the adjudicating authority in respect of ARE-1s in Annexure A is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in para 16 and needs to be reconsidered.
4.14 Thus while upholding the demand made by the adjudicating authority in respect of the documents (ARE-1/ AR-
4) in Annexure B and C we set aside the demand confirmed in respect of Annexure A and remand the matter back to adjudicating authority for consideration of the same vis a vis the documents that may be furnished by the appellant. We also set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority which 38 E/1000/2010 needs to be re-determined by the adjudicating authority after taking into account the total of demand confirmed against the appellant in respect of Annexure B and C and the demand confirmed by him in respect of Annexure A in the remand proceedings.
5.1 The appeals is thus partially allowed as stated in para 4.14 supra and the matter remanded to adjudicating authority for reconsideration of demand made under Annexure A of the impugned order and for imposition of penalty after such re- determination.
5.2 Since the matter is quite old adjudicating authority should decide the matter in remand proceedings within four months of receipt of this order after allowing the personal hearing to the appellants.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 14.01.2020) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) tvu