Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Calcutta Security Printers Ltd vs Delhi on 13 March, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I
Excise Appeal No.70001 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-In-Original No.38-2017-CE, dated 15.09.2017 passed by
Commissioner, Additional Director General (Adjudication), GST Intelligence,
New Delhi)
M/s Calcutta Security Printers Ltd. .....Appellant
(12/478-A, Mcrobert Ganj, Kanpur)
VERSUS
Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi
....Respondent
(West Block No.VIII, Wing No.6, Sector-I, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066) AND Excise Appeal No.70002 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-In-Original No.38-2017-CE, dated 15.09.2017 passed by Commissioner, Additional Director General (Adjudication), GST Intelligence, New Delhi) M/s Vaibhav Bhargava, Director .....Appellant (Director M/s Calcutta Security Printers Ltd. 12/478-A, Mcrobert Ganj, Kanpur) VERSUS Additional Director General (Adjudication), New Delhi ....Respondent (West Block No.VIII, Wing No.6, Sector-I, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066) APPEARANCE:
Shri B. L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.-70073-70074/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 10.03.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 13.03.2026 2 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 P. ANJANI KUMAR:
The Appellant is Calcutta Security Printers Ltd and is engaged in the printing of cheque books, cartons/boxes/cases, calendars, sheets, match tickets, letterhead pads, Adhiwakta welfare stamps and other products; the Appellants undertook printing on behalf of others also on job works basis; The Appellants were of the opinion that the activity undertaken by them does not amount, to manufacture and thus no Central Excise duty is payable by them. The Officers of DGCA or DGGSTI visited the factory premises of the Appellant on 16.07.2015 and on conduct of search and investigation, a Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2016 was issued; the officers entertained an opinion that the activity undertaken by the Appellants amounts to manufacture and as the turnover of the Appellants was more than Rs.4 crores in each of the Financial Year from 2010-11 to 2014-15, they were not eligible for SSI Exemption.
2. A Show Cause Notice dated 02.06.2016 was issued to the Appellants demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.7,16,25,246/- alongwith interest and penalty. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the impugned order dated 15.09.2017 confirming Central Excise duty of Rs.1,65,08,549/- alongwith equal penalty; appropriating Rs.15 lakhs paid by the Appellant; imposing equal penalty and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. The Adjudicating Authority has also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on Shri Vaibhav Bhargava, Director of the Appellant. Hence, this appeal.
4. Shri B.L. Narasiman learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand to the extent of Rs.5,50,21,697/- and confirmed the demand of Rs.1,65,08,549/- classifying the products like Printed carton and boxes, Invitation cards, Greeting cards, Printed tags, printed 3 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 sheet tags cards, Letterhead pads, Calendars, printed estimate pads, printed cash memos etc.
5. Learned Counsel submits that the Appellants activity does not amounts to manufacture; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1978 (2) ELT 336 (SC) that the Central Excise Act charges duty on manufacture of goods. The word "Manufacture" implies a change but every change in the raw material is not manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character and use; he also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., 1977 (1) ELT 199 (S.C.) held that "Manufacture" means bringing into existence a new substance known to the market. He submits that in the impugned case the activity undertaken by the Appellants does not bring into existence any new product and therefore, the goods are not excisable and consequently no duty is payable by them.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that the activity of printing of material received from the customers does not amount to manufacture as held in the following cases:-
Chromaprint (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore, Excise Appeal No.41994 of 2014
- CESTAT Chennai Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore I, Final Order No. 20032/ 2026 dated 16.01.2026 Matchwell v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I, 2020 (371) ELT 840 (Tri. - Ahmd.) HBD Packaging (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, 2012 (284) ELT 727 (Tri. - Del.)
7. Learned Counsel further submits that the product manufactured by them is customer specific and therefore, it cannot be said to be marketable. The onus is on the Department to adduce evidence as to the marketability of the product. In the impugned case Revenue has not discharged their liability with 4 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 evidences so that the printed material is marketable. He relies on following cases:-
Dy. Chief Manager (P&S), Central Railway v. CCE, Mumbai-I, 2015 (328) E.L.T. 296 (Tri.-Mumbai) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, 2005 (181) ELT 170 (SC) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Marico Industries Ltd., 2016 (338) ELT 335 (SC)
8. Learned counsel further submits that even if the goods are held to be excisable, the benefit of job work under Notification 214/86-CE i.e. cannot be denied to them. He also submitted that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to him. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions:-
Fabkraft Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Excise Appeal No. 1610 of 2012 - Cestat Mumbai Saravana colour match works versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Excise Appeal No. 42232 of 2014 - CESTAT Chennai Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2021 (375) ELT 379 (Tri- Del)
9. Learned Counsel further submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 26.02.2016 covering the period from March 2011 to September 2015, therefore, the period from March 2011 to April 2015 is clearly barred by limitation. There was no clarity with respect to the correct classification of the product; the Department relies only on the classification of the goods under Chapter 48 whereas the Appellant holds that they are classifiable under Chapter 49 which attracts NIL rate of duty; as the issue being that of interpretation of statute, extended period cannot be imposed; Revenue has not adduced any evidence to allege suppression, misrepresentation, collusion etc with an intent to evade payment of duty. Hence, extended period cannot be invoked. He submits that it was incorrect on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to allege that extended period can be invoked as the Appellant did not seek registration and did not file ST-3 Returns; extended period cannot be invoked also for the reason that the Appellants have started paying duty at the 5 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 instance of the Department after search operation; he also submits that penalty cannot be imposed for the above reasons. He relies upon following decisions:-
Right Resource Management Service v. Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Dehradun, (2024) 15 Centax 362 HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida, Service Tax Appeal No. 70718 of 2021 Aveco Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, 2018 (362) ELT 624 S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co., (1964) 53 ITR 231 Commercial Motors Ltd. v. CTT, (2015) 15 SCC 168 Industrial Filter & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, 2016-VIL- 117-CESTAT-DEL-CE PVR Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 435 (Tri- Del.) M/s Anand Nishikawa Co Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported at 2005-TIOL-118-SC-CX Ajay Mishra vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi -III 2023 (386) E.L.T. 310 (Tri- Del.) Continental Foundation JT. Venture vs. Commr. of C. Ex, Chandigarh-I, 2007(216) E.L.T. 177 (SC) Apex Electrical (P) Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1992 (61) ELT 413 Neptune Equipment v. CCE, 2010 (259) ELT 588 Thyssenkrupp Industries India Private Limited v. Comm. of Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I, 2018-TIOL-3828-
CESTAT-MUM Rohan Builders India Private Limited v. Comm. of C. Ex., Pune- I, 2018-TIOL-3826-CESTAT-MUM Sands Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, 2009 (16) S.T.R. 329 (Tri.-Mumbai) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 2023 (73) G.S.T.L. 310 (Del.) Bharat Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Adjudication), 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 368 (Del.) Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Adj.) of S.T., New Delhi, 2021 (47) G.S.T.L. 35 (Tri. - Del.) Raghuvar (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur, 2023 (1) TMI 932 - CESTAT New Delhi G.D. Goenka Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South, Final Order No. 51088/2024 dated 21.8.2023 6 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 Continental Engines Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Alwar (Raj.), Final Order No. 50957/2023 dated 11.7.2023 CCE v. H.M.M. Limited, 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC) Pratibha Processors v. Union of India, 1996 (88) ELT 12 (SC),
10. Shri Santosh Kumar, learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
11. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.
12. We find that the Appellants are engaged in printing cartons, sheets, labels etc. It is not the case of the Department that the Appellants have the machinery wherewithal to manufacture excisable products classifiable under Section 48 or Section 49. The only allegation by the Department on the basis of the classification of the goods cannot be sustained. There is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice or in the impugned order that the Appellant had installed machineries, procured raw material, employed persons to produce the products classifiable under Chapter 48/49. It is not denied that the Appellants are engaged in printing of cheque books, cartons/boxes/cases, calendars, sheets, match tickets, letterhead pads, adhiwakta welfare stamps and other products; it is not proved that mere printing on the material amounts to manufacture. We, further find that as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is no specific section or chapter notes in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 deeming printing to be an act of manufacture. It is also not proved that the products manufactured by the Appellants are marketable in themselves as they are printed for a particular consumer. We find that the issue is no longer res integra having been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Chromaprint (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) after going through the various cases decided in this regard and held that activity of printing does not amount to manufacture. The Bench has held as under:-
7 Excise Appeal No.70001 &70002 of 2018 "8. The issue to be decided is whether the activity of printing undertaken by the appellant amounts to 'manufacture' or not. The case of the department is that the appellant is a job worker who received raw material from the customers and do the activity of printing which amounts to manufacture of finished products. However, in the show cause notice or in the Order-in-Original it is not explained by department as to which is the provision which renders the activity of printing undertaken by the appellant excisable so as to be 'manufacture'.
9. The Department has construed the activity of printing to be manufacture, merely because the goods fall under tariff heading 482110. The classification of the goods or its excisability cannot be a ground for holding that the activity amounts to 'manufacture'. The department has to establish that the activity undertaken by the appellant as per the chapter notes of Section 48 to be that of manufacture. In the present case, there is nothing brought out on record to hold that the activity of printing is "manufacture' by chapter notes.
10. In the case of Matchwell (supra), the Tribunal had occasion to consider similar issue. It was held that merely because the goods are classifiable under a particular tariff heading, it cannot be said that the activity undertaken by the appellant in the nature of printing of images on paper would amount to 'manufacture'. Relevant paragraph reads as under :
"7. Heard both the sides and perused the records. We find that the fact is not under dispute that the appellant have carried out the printing process on the already manufactured papers. The department's contention is that the printed paper is classifiable under CETH 4811 90 99 and liable to duty. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the printing of already manufactured paper do not amount to manufacture, therefore, the printed paper is 8 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 not liable to duty being non-manufactured goods in terms of Section 2(f). We find that the department has demanded duty with a view that the appellant have manufactured printed paper, however appellant have not manufactured paper, they have only carried out the process of printing. We find that the nature of printing carried out by the appellant does not alter the identity of the product as the paper remains as a paper only and mere printing does not amount to manufacture. In this regard Ld. Counsel relied upon the various judgments. In the case of Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that printing/decorating of duty paid glazed ceramic tile did not change their basic character namely, glazed tile and hence not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In case of Metlex (I) P. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed laminating/metallising of duty paid film does not amount to manufacture. In the case of Servo-Med Industries (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that manufacture is distinct from marketability/saleability, it takes place on application of one or more processes which may lead to a change in goods to amount to manufacture, there must be a transformation by which new and different article which has distinctive name, character or use, Every change is not manufacture. If finished product cannot conveniently be used in the form in which it happens to be, and is required to be changed into various shapes/sizes, character and end use of first product continue to be same, there is no transformation. In the present case also applying the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment, the paper remained as paper, the printing process carried out only for use in the decorative laminate sheets/MDF Boards etc. However, 9 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 after process of printing, the first product i.e. paper continue to be same as paper only, therefore, no manufacturing has taken place in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paper Product Ltd. (supra), held that in the case of printing of name by job worker on film which is then utilized for purpose of packing does not amount to manufacture. As per this judgment, the printing was enabling the product to use as packing material for the purpose of packing.
Similarly, in the present case also, the plain paper was printed with design for use in decorative laminate sheets/MDF Boards.
8. We also find that even if there is change in tariff heading, but there is significant change in the process and the said process does not amount to manufacture, merely change of tariff heading does not make product dutiable once again. This issue has been considered in the various judgments :
• S.R. Tissues P. Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) • Variety Lumbers P. Ltd. - 2014 (302) E.L.T. 519 (Guj.) • Variety Lumbers P. Ltd. - 2018 (360) E.L.T. 790 (S.C.).
• Castings (India) Ltd. - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 343 (Jhar.) The Ld. Counsel has made alternative submission that even if the process is considered to be a process which amount to manufacture, the printed base paper will merit classifiable under Chapter 49, hence no duty is payable on end product. In this regard, we find that the relevant Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 49 is reproduced below :
''2. For the purposes of Chapter 49, the term "printed" also means reproduced by means of a duplicating machine, produced under the control of an automatic 10 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 data processing machine, embossed, photographed, photocopied, thermocopied or typewritten." From the above chapter note, it is clear that any printed paper if amount to manufacture, the same is correctly classifiable under Chapter Note 49 and the most appropriate Central Excise Tariff Heading shall be 4911 99 90 which attracts nil rate of duty. On this plea of the appellant also, the demand is not sustainable.
9. As per our above discussion, we are of the view that under the facts and circumstances, whether the product is classifiable under Chapter 4811 90 99 or under 4911 99 90 appellant is not liable to pay duty. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed."
11. In the case of HBD Packaging (P) Ltd. (supra), similar issue was considered wherein it was held that the activity of printing and plastic / varnish coating of plain paperboard as per customer's specification either purchased by assessee or received for job work does not amount to manufacture. It was held that the basic character of paper board has not changed. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. - 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC). Relevant para of the Tribunal decision reads as under :
"7. Coming to the question as to whether the process of printing as per customer's specification and plastic/varnish coating of the paperboard either purchased by the appellant from outside or received from their Baddi unit for job work, amounts to manufacture, for this purpose the department has to lead evidence showing that by this process, a commercially new product with distinct name, character or usage has emerged. However on this point, the 11 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 Commissioner in para 5.17 of the impugned order-in- original has given the following finding :-
"5.17 The primary use of the goods manufactured by the party was to convert it into carton/such packing material and not more than that and the act of printing/coating was merely in relation to such use and not more than that. In my view, even without being subjected to printing and coating, the plain coated paper could be converted into carton/such packing material and be put to the use in the same manner, as a printed carton is used. In such circumstances, it can be said that the act of printing was merely incidental to the primary use and hence the resultant product obtained after the act of printing remained covered by Chapter 48".
Thus even per the Commissioner's findings, even after the process of printing and plastic/varnish coating of paperboard, the basic character and use of the product has not changed and paperboard, whether plain or printed and coated is used for the same purpose, i.e. making of carton for packaging.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) while holding that printing of plain glass bottles does not amount to manufacture, has in para 16 of the judgment observed as under -
''16. On an analysis of the aforesaid rulings, a two fold test emerges for deciding whether the process is that of "manufacture". First, whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into existence or whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist; secondly, whether the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose, but for the said process. In other words, whether the 12 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 commodity already in existence will be of no commercial use but for the said process. In the present case, the plain bottles are themselves commercial commodities and can be sold and used as such. By the process of printing names or logos on the bottles, the basic character of the commodity does not change. They confirm to be bottles. It cannot be said that but for the process of printing, the bottles will serve no purposes or are of no commercial use."
8.1 We are of the view that the above judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case as in this case, admittedly, plain paperboard and printed paperboard, both can be used for making cartons for packaging. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 793 (S.C.), which has also been relied upon in its above-mentioned judgment in case of Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that the plain carton even after printing remains a carton i.e. the product of packaging industry and they do not become the product of printing industry after printing.
9. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the process of printing and varnish/plastic coating of plain cartons received by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such no duty is chargeable on the same. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed."
12. In the case of Fitrite Packers Vs CCE Mumbai (supra), the issue considered was whether the printing of duty paid GI paper amount to 'manufacture'. The Tribunal followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment of UOI Vs J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as decision of ITC Ltd. which 13 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant para reads as under :
"14. We have considered arguments from both sides as well as the case laws cited before us. As we have observed earlier, it is well-settled that mere change of tariff classification from one heading to another, in this case, from 48.05 to 48.11, would not make the product excisable unless the process meets the test of manufacture. We find that there are decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned DR, which have held similar goods such as wrappers for soap, wrappers for biri and printed PVC sheets to be manufactured goods on account of printing. However, the decisions cited by the learned Advocate mainly the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass (cited supra), and decision in the case of Printorium (cited supra), which has been uphold by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decision in the case of ITC Ltd. reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 426 (Tri) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court hold that printing of glass bottles, aluminium foils, paperboard respectively do not result in manufacture of new commodity. We have also kept in view arguments from both sides in the context of classification of the impugned product that the printing is incidental and primary use of GI printed paper roll is for wrapping, which is not changed by the process of printing. Hence following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.G. Glass (cited supra), we are of the view that if the impugned printed products are produced in the same factory, where paper is produced, it would be chargeable to duty under Heading 48.11, whereas in this case, the appellants have bought duty paid GI paper and merely carried out the process of printing, hence they are not required to pay duty on such printed GI papers 14 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 produced from duty paid GI paper as the process of printing in this case does not amount to manufacture.
15. Accordingly, in view of our finding above, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals."
13. The issue has been discussed in detail in the Tribunal's decision in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) which has been subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal held that printing on packages does not amount to 'manufacture'. Relevant para reads as under :
"7. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we are required to see as to whether the printing carried out by the appellants on the coated paper board amounts to a process of manufacture? In this regard, we notice that the West Regional Bench in the case of CCE v. Supreme Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that process of printing on plain plastic film does not amount to a process of manufacture. They have followed the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of 1986 (23) E.L.T. 217 and that of Apex Court's judgment rendered in UOI v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Paper Products Ltd., 2000 (115) E.L.T. 277 (S.C.) has held that printing of name on the film which is then utilized for the purpose of packaging does not amount to a process of manufacture. In view of these two judgments, we have to clearly uphold the contention of the appellant that the process of printing on the coated paper does not amount to a process of manufacture and no new commodity arises. Even otherwise, the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal in the case of Sri Kumar Agencies v. CCE, Bangalore (supra) has held that the printed paper board would be rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 4901.90 is required 15 Excise Appeal No.70001 & 70002 of 2018 to be upheld. Hence, by applying the ratio rendered in Sri Kumar Agencies' case which has been followed in the case of Paxwell Printers v. CCE, Bangalore (supra) and in the case of CCE v. Reliance Printers (supra), we hold that the classification of the printed paper board in any event if it is held to be goods would fall under Chapter Heading 4901.90. The judgment cited by learned SDR in the case of Headway Lithographic Co. v.
CCE, Kolkata-I (supra) pertains to wrapper for biri which is a different product and the classification therein is different.
... ... ......
10. We also uphold the claim of appellant that in the event of printed coated paper board being considered as goods, they are entitled for the claim of Modvat. The Modvat claim is available in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further the plea that the demands are barred by time as all the facts had been furnished and classification list had been approved is required to be upheld in the matter. However, we have already given a finding that the process of printing on the coated paper board does not amount to manufacture, and if so, the alternative claim that it is required to be classified under 4901.90 is upheld."
14. After appreciating the evidence placed before us and following the decisions cited supra, we are of the view that the activity of printing done by the appellant does not amount to 'manufacture'. The demand of Excise duty, interest and the penalties imposed cannot sustain. The demand, interest and penalties are set aside. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any."
16 Excise Appeal No.70001 &70002 of 2018
12. We find that co-ordinate Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal has followed the above case in the case of Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
13. In view of the above, we are of considered opinion that the Appellants have strong case in their favour on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained on merits. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Appellants on merits. We need not go into the issue of limitation and other issues.
14. Appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced in open court on 13.03.2026) Sd/-
(P. K. CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/-
(P. ANJANI KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Nihal