Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt Ltd vs Ce & Cgst Noida on 10 March, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I
Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/PR. COMMR/ST/NOIDA/2019-20 dated
05.02.2020 passed by Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida)
M/s Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., .....Appellant
(A-66, Sector-63, Noida-201301)
VERSUS
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
Noida ....Respondent
(C-56/42, Renu Tower, Sector-62, Noida) WITH Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/PR. COMMR/ST/NOIDA/2019-20 dated 05.02.2020 passed by Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida) Shri Mukesh Khurana, Director .....Appellant (A-66, Sector-63, Noida-201301) VERSUS Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida ....Respondent (C-56/42, Renu Tower, Sector-62, Noida) APPEARANCE:
Shri Abhinav Kalra, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NOs.- 70119-70120/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2024 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.03.2025 P. K. CHOUDHARY:
The present appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.11/PR. COMMR/ST/NOIDA/2019-20 dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Noida.
Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 2 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant No.1 was providing taxable services viz. Manpower Requirement/Supply Agency Services, Construction of Residential Complex Service, Works Contract Services, Legal Consultancy Services & Special Service provided by the builders.
Information was gathered by the Anti Evasion branch of erstwhile Service Tax Commissionerate, Noida that the Appellant was not paying Service Tax properly and also shifted its business premises from H-171, Sector-63, Noida to A-66, Sector- 63, Noida without amendment to this effect in its Service Tax Registration. Following the information, the Officers of Anti- evasion branch Service Tax, Commissionerate Noida visited the premises of the Appellant at A-66, Sector-63, Noida on 11.05.2016 and conducted search vide Panchnama dated 11.05.2016. The Appellant was found to be registered as Service Tax Assessee vide Registration No. AAFCR6959PSD001. During investigation, statement of Shri Mukesh Khurana, Director of the company, the Appellant No.2, was recorded. He stated that business premises of the company were shifted around one year back but no amendment application was filed to the Department. He informed that during the period 2015-16, tax liability amounting to Rs.54,46,368/- was pending under RCM. He voluntarily paid Rs.10,00,000/- towards the above demand. Statement of Shri Khurana was again recorded on 30.6.2016. He admitted Service Tax liability amounting to Rs.2,94,39,142/- and further stated that his company always had balance in their Cenvat Credit account more than the tax liability. He debited such tax liability through Cenvat credit account vide JV/15-16 dated 17.05.2016. The above tax liability was in addition to tax liability arising due to RCM. The Appellant filed ST-3 returns for the period from 2013-14 to 2015-16 as per the chart given below:-
Period of Returns Due date Filed on
April 2013 to 25.10.2013 7.11.2013
Sept., 2013
Oct., 2013 to 25.4.2014 14.9.2016
Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020
3 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020
March 2014
April 2014 to 14.11.2014 17.9.2016
Sept.2014
Oct., 2014 to 25.4.2015 16.9.2016
March 2015
April 2015 to 25.10.2015 16.9.2016
Sept., 2015
Oct., 2015 to 29.4.2016 17.9.2016
March 2016
In these returns the Appellant utilized payment of due Service Tax through Cenvat credit balance.
3. Exercise of the scrutiny of input invoices/input services invoices against which credit was taken during the financial year 2013-14 to 2015-16 was also undertaken. It was found that Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.1,46,118/- taken during the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 on the strength of invoices which were not bearing address of registered premises. So the above amount of Cenvat Credit was found inadmissible. It was further found that the Appellant availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.40,01,908/- on the input service invoices bearing address A- 66, Sector-63, Noida which was not registered. So, the Cenvat credit of Rs.40,01,908/- was not admissible to the Appellant. Consequent to scrutiny it was further found that Cenvat credit of Rs.7,24,612/- availed during the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 without any invoice. So the amount was not admissible as Cenvat Credit.
4. From the scrutiny of Balance Sheet for the financial year 2013-14 to 2015-16, it was found that under the head of cancellation charges, cheque returned charges and miscellaneous income receipt were shown but no Service Tax was paid thereon which was amounting to Rs.11,97,396/-.
5. On account of late filing of ST-3 returns, an amount of late fees of Rs.72,600/- was also liable to be paid under Section 70 of the Finance Act read with Section 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Appellant deliberately suppressed the facts with regard to correct declaration of value of service and also misstated the facts. So, the short paid /non paid tax and Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 4 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 inadmissible Cenvat credit were liable to be recovered under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking extended period.
6. In view of the above, Show Cause Notice1 dated 05.11.2018 was issued proposing demand of Service Tax of Rs.3,60,82,906/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposal for appropriation of Rs.3,04,39,142/- already paid was also made. Interest on the above amount and equal penalty was also proposed. Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.48,72,638/- was demanded under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 20042 read with proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest and equal penalty. Penalty was also proposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Late fees of Rs.72,600/- was also proposed in terms of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 readwith Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules 1994. Besides above, personal penalty upon Shri Mukesh Khurana, Director of the Appellant Company was also proposed under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention for Service Tax Rules/Finance Act, 1994.
7. The SCN was adjudicated vide the impugned order and demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.3,60,82,906/- was confirmed along with interest and equal penalty. Amount of Rs.3,04,39,142/- which was already deposited was appropriated towards the said demand. Demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.7,24,612/- was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Rest of the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.41,48,026/- was dropped. Personal penalty of Rs.1 lakh was also imposed upon Shri Mukesh Khurana, Director of the Appellant Company under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and late fees of Rs.72,600/- was also demanded under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for late submission of ST-
1SCN 2 CCR, 2004 Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 5 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 3 returns. The present appeals are filed being aggrieved with the impugned order.
8. Shri Abhinav Kalra, learned Counsel appeared for submission of defense contentions on behalf of the Appellant. He submitted that due to crisis in real estate business, most employees of the company left their jobs and due to paucity of experienced staff, the Appellant could not file ST-3 Returns for the period from Oct., 2013 to March, 2016 in time. However, the Appellant was availing Cenvat credit regularly in his Cenvat credit account. He further submitted that the tax liability in respect of taxable services was always less than the Cenvat credit balance lying in Cenvat Account. He argued that Rule 3(4) of the CCR, 2004 provided utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax with the condition that the credit utilization should not exceed the credit balance available on the last day of the month. He submitted that the Service Tax liability of each month had not exceeded the Cenvat credit available in the Cenvat credit register. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that when tax liability had already been declared in ST-3 returns, no demand notice could be issued in view of the provisions of Section 73(1B) of Finance Act, 1994. He also raised the objection in respect of demand made for the period April, 2013 to Sept., 2013 which was barred by limitation even after applying extended period. He further submitted that the whole demand is barred by limitation.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant contested the demand of Service Tax on the charges of cancellation recovered from the clients such as cheque return charges and miscellaneous income on the ground that these were not any type of services but only penalty for breach of contract. Regarding denial of Cenvat credit, he submitted that all tax paying documents were already produced at the time of investigation. He further submitted that all entries regarding receipt of input and input services were duly accounted for in the Books of Accounts. Hence, denial of credit is not justified. He also contested proposal for imposition of penalty when due taxes were already paid and declared in Service Tax Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 6 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 returns. As regard demand of Service Tax under RCM, the learned Counsel submitted that it was a case of revenue neutrality. If the tax liability arising out of RCM was deposited, the same would had been available in the form of Cenvat credit to the Appellant. Hence, there was no loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In such situation, the demand would not survive in case of RCM. As regards personal penalty on Shri Mukesh Khurana, director, it was submitted that role of Shri Khurana was not discussed in any evasion of tax. Since there is no evasion of tax by the Appellant No.1, imposition of penalty on Shri Mukesh Khurana is not justified.
10. Learned Authorized Representative of the Department justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant, being devoid of any merits, may be dismissed.
11. We have heard both the sides and also perused the appeal records.
We find that there are four principal issues which are to be considered by us in this appeal:-
(i) Whether demand notice is justified under proviso to Section 73 when tax liabilities have already been accepted by the Appellant by filing ST-3 Returns;
(ii) Whether demand of Service Tax on cancellation charges, miscellaneous charges and cheque return charges is legally correct;
(iii) Whether demand of Service Tax on services covered under RCM is justified when the same is claimed as Cenvat credit by the Appellant; and
(iv) Whether demand of inadmissible credit in respect of which invoices were not produced but duly accounted for in the Books of Accounts is justified or not.
Issue No. (i) :
12. The undisputed facts are that all Service Tax Returns for the period from April, 2013 to March, 2016 had already been filed though after due date but as there was provision under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, that an assessee could file Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 7 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 its return even after due date, the late filing of Service Tax return does not have any effect on the self assessed tax. Under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, every assessee was required to self assess the tax due on services provided by him and was required to furnish returns in prescribed form. The Appellant had self assessed its Service Tax liability in view of the provisions of Section 70 and had filed Service Tax returns due for intervening period before issuance of the SCN. The SCN even includes demand of Service Tax which was self assessed by the Appellant and was informed to the Department. As per provisions of Section 73(1B) of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides the circumstances in which notice of demand was not required to be issued is reproduced for appreciating the issue in right perspective.
"(1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in a case where the amount of service tax payable has been self-assessed in the return furnished under sub-
section (1) of Section 70, but not paid either in full or in part, the same shall be recovered along with interest thereon in any of the modes specified in Section 87, without service of notice under sub-section (1):"
An in-depth reading of the above provisions reveal that where tax was self assessed and returns were furnished, no notice of demand was required to be issued under Section 73(1). We further find that in the present case, tax was self assessed and service tax liability was declared in returns as already admitted in the SCN as well as impugned order. So, issuance of SCN for recovery of self assessed tax is patently unwarranted and legally incorrect. It is also found that the service tax liability declared in the ST-3 returns was deposited before issuance of SCN. As per provisions of Section 73(3), if any short levied or short paid service tax is deposited before issuance of the SCN, no notice under Section 73(1) in respect of the amount so paid was required to be issued. As regard, imposition of equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we find that it is imposable when any notice has been issued under Section 73(1) Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020
8 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 of the Finance Act, 1994, but in this case, as there was no requirement to issue notice under Section 73, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 is unwarranted. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mass Marketing and Advertisement Services P. Ltd., [2006 (3) S.T.R. 333(T)] where it has been held that no penalty is imposable if service tax is deposited before issuance of SCN. The same view has also been taken in the case of M/s Impress AD-ADIS and Displace [2006 (3) S.T.R. 386 (T)] where the Tribunal has held that no penalty is imposable if service tax is deposited before issuance of SCN.
Issue No. (ii):
13. We find that it is a common practice in the real estate industry to book a house by a client for purchase but some time booking is cancelled even after payment of some installments. In such a situation, the builder does not refund the whole amount but deducts certain amount and retains the same as per the contract/ agreement. The amount deducted because of cancellation of flat//house is on account of breach of contract by the buyer. It is not charged to refrain the builder from doing any act against the buyer. It is a kind of penalty charged by the builder for breaching the condition of agreement. As regard charging of Service Tax on such amount, reference is to be made to the provisions of Section 66(B) of the Finance Act, 1994, which provides that service tax would be charged on services provided by one person to another. Under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994,service is defined as below:-
(44) "service" means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a declared service, The definition of service comprises two parts - first part pertains to main definition and second part comprises certain activities which have been declared as service under section 66(E) of the Finance Act, 1994. The deduction of certain amount by the builder from deposits made by the buyer, on cancellation of booking of flat, does not tantamount to providing of any service as there is no activity carried out by the builder in doing so. In a Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020
9 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 service, a person doing an activity does so at the desire of the person for whom the activities is done for a consideration. In the present case, no activity is being done by the Appellant or the buyer in deduction of certain amount. It is deducted as per the agreement. Hence, it is not service as far as first part of the definition is concerned. As regard declared service, it is observed that under Section 66(E) (e) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is provided as "agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act or to tolerate an act or a situation or to do an act". In the present case, nothing is being tolerated by the Appellant. The cancellation charge is a legal consequence arising on account of agreement. It is a kind of penalty which is a charge without a service. Hence, no service tax is chargeable. In this regard we refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaipur Jewellery Shop [2016 (12) TMI-344-CESTAT] where issue of charging service tax on cancellation charges has been considered. In that case the party were engaged in business exhibition service and arranged booths booked by its customer and in case of cancellation, booking amount was refunded after certain deductions as cancellation charges. The Department raised the demand of service tax on the said cancellation charges treating them as a service under Section 66A(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal quashed the demand and held that no service tax was chargeable on such cancellation charges.
14. In the present case, nothing is being tolerated by the party. The buyer entered into an agreement to buy flat and as per the agreement, if the buyer cancels the deal, he has to pay certain amount of the value of flat. The charge of the said amount is a legal consequence as defined in the Indian Contract Act. It is a kind of penalty which is being charged without any activity/service. Hence, no service tax would be chargeable on the said amount. In this regard we further find that clarification was also issued by the Board under „Taxation of Services: An Education Guide -20 June 2012‟ on the issue of charging Service Tax on the amount collected as penalty for breach of a contract. The relevant portion of the clarification is as under:-
Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 10 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 "2.3.1 Would imposition of a fine or a penalty for violation of a provision of law be a consideration for the activity of breaking the law making such activity a „service‟?
No. To be a service an activity has to be carried out for a consideration. Therefore, fines and penalties which are legal consequences of a person's actions are not in the nature of consideration for an activity."
It is clear from the above clarification that collection of penalty for breach of any contract is not covered under the ambit of „service‟ and as such no service tax is chargeable on such amount. It is a settled position that the Departmental officers are bound to follow the interpretation given by the Board. In this context, decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries [2001 (12) TMI 3 (SC)] is relied upon. In that case it has been held by the Court that interpretation issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs is binding on the departmental officers.
15. It is observed that there is no element of service in respect of cheque bouncing/return charges collected by the party. No service has ever been provided by the party against such charges. The charging of cheque bouncing charges is in the form of imposition of a penalty. It is not being charged towards any service. Under Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax is payable on the activity for tolerating an act. Cheque bouncing is not covered under the said clause. Hence no service tax is payable on the same. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rohan Motors Ltd., [2020-TIOL-1676-CESTAT-DELHI]. The party was collecting cheque bounce charges from its customers but service tax was being paid on such charges. The Tribunal held in categorical terms that no service tax would be chargeable on such charges.
16. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of K. N. Food Industries Pvt. Ltd., [ 2019-TIOL-3651- CESTAT-AL]. In that case, the party was manufacturing Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 11 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 confectionaries for and on behalf of Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., on job work basis. Besides job charges, the party were also charging certain amount, termed as ex-gratia charges, when quantity ordered for manufacturing was less that minimum mutually agreed quantity. The Department raised demand of service tax on such ex-gratia charges. The Tribunal dropped the demand by observing as under :-
"In the present case apart from manufacturing and receiving the cost of the same, the appellants were also receiving the compensation charges under the head ex- gratia job charges. The same are not covered by any of the Acts as described under Section 66E (e) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said Sub-clause proceeds to state various active and passive actions or reactions which are declared to be a service namely; to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act. As such for invocation of the said clause, there has to be first a concurrence to assume an obligation to refrain from an act or tolerate an act etc. which are clearly absent in the present case. In the instant case, if the delivery of project gets delayed, or any other terms of the contract gests breached, which were expected to cause some damage or loss to the appellant, the contract itself provides for compensation to make good the possible damages owning to delay, or breach, as the case may be, by way of payment of liquidated damages by the contractor to the appellant. As such, the contracts provide for an eventuality which was uncertain and also corresponding consequence or remedy if that eventuality occurs. As such the present ex-gratia charges made by the M/s Parle to the appellant were towards making good the damages, losses or injuries arising from "unintended" events and does not emanate from any obligation on the part of any of the parties to tolerate an act or a situation and cannot be considered to be the payments for any services."
Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 12 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 In view of the above settled position, no service tax would be demandable on cheque return/bouncing charges collected by the party.
17. Further, in respect of the income recorded under the head "Miscellaneous income", it is found that only bank interest received on account of deposits has been booked under the said head. As per Section 66D(n)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994, interest accrued on deposits is a service classified in the Negative list. It means no service tax would be chargeable on the amount of interest. The demand of Service Tax on the Miscellaneous Income which represents interest earned by the party is not sustainable.
Issue No. (iii):
18. As regards demand of service tax on services of categories of manpower requirement/supply agencies services and legal consultancy services under reverse charge mechanism, we find that whatever service tax was paid thereon could have been taken back by the Appellant in the form of CENVAT credit as the Appellant was registered as service tax assessee and was eligible to avail credit on input services. The above services were undoubtedly input services for the Appellant. Thus, it is a case of revenue neutrality& net revenue gain would be nil. Hence, at the end, there is no loss of revenue to the Exchequer. It has been settled law that in case of revenue neutrality, demand of any differential duty would not be sustainable. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of V. F. Commercial Vehicles Ltd., [2019 (31) G.S.T.L. J96 (S.C.)]. In that case, it was held that the demand of differential duty would not be sustainable as the same is available as rebate to the assessee. So, it is revenue neutrality case. Decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., [2019 (368) E.L.T. (A4) (S.C.)] is also referred to. In this case the Court has enunciated that demand of differential duty as not sustainable on the ground of revenue neutrality in as much as differential duty would be available as credit to the assessee. In view of the Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 13 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 above judgments, it is clear that demand in the present case is not sustainable.
Issue No. (iv):
19. As regards demand of late fee for filing ST-3 returns beyond the due date specified under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, the relevant provisions are as below:-
"(1) Every person liable to pay the service tax shall himself assess the tax due on the services provided by him and shall furnish to the Superintendent of Central Excise, a return in such form and in such manner and at such frequency and with such late fee not exceeding twenty thousand rupees, for delayed furnishing of return, as may be prescribed."
20. A simple reading of the above abstract indicates that there are no provisions to raise any demand notice for late fees. It is provided that a return can be filed with late fees of maximum amount of Rs.20,000/-. It does not prescribe that incase of non- payment of late fees, any demand notice is required to be issued. In the lack of any provision for issuing show cause notice for demand of late fee, we refrain to confirm any such demand.
21. As regards demand of interest, we find that failure in debiting of Cenvat credit account by due service tax liability at the end of every month is only technical error. A careful consideration of the provision of Section 75 of the Finance Act, indicates that it is a type of provision of compensatory nature where an assessee withholds it‟s tax liability. Interest is chargeable on the actual amount of tax withheld by the assessee. When an assessee is holding sufficient balance in Cenvat credit account which is to be utilized only for payment of due taxes, no interest would be chargeable. We find that there had always been balance in the Cenvat credit account to meet out service tax liability arising every month. Non-debiting of Cenvat credit account is only technical mistake. In the case of Vodafone Essar East Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX (Tri.-Cul.) Service Tax Appeal No.77300 of 2018 dated 04.10.2023, it has been held that if the assessee is holding Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 14 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 sufficient balance of Cenvat credit, no interest is chargeable on late debiting of credit account. In the case of Avo Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of GST & CE (Chennai) Appeal No.40196-40197, dated 26.08.2024, it has been held that if the party had sufficient credit balance, the demand of interest in this regard cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
22. Penalty under Section 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, was of residual nature. In the SCN and also in the impugned order, nothing was discussed to impose the penalty. We, therefore, quash the said penalty.
23. As regards personal penalty on Shri Mahesh Khurana, Director under Section 78A of the Finance Act, 1994 :-
"SECTION 78A. Penalty for offences by director, etc., of company -- Where a company has committed any of the following contraventions, namely :--
(a) evasion of service tax; or
(b) issuance of invoice, bill or, as the case may be, a challan without provision of taxable service in violation of the rules made under the provisions of this Chapter; or
(c) availment and utilisation of credit of taxes or duty without actual receipt of taxable service or excisable goods either fully or partially in violation of the rules made under the provisions of this Chapter; or
(d) failure to pay any amount collected as service tax to the credit of the Central Government beyond a period of six months from the date on which such payment becomes due, then any director, manager, secretary or other officer of such company, who at the time of such contravention was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of such company and was knowingly concerned with such contravention, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees."
24. In the present case, evasion of service tax is not proven. There is no case of issuance of fake invoice or challan and also no case of wrong availment of credit. Nothing has been Service Tax Appeal No.70241 of 2020 15 Service Tax Appeal No.70260 of 2020 discussed that taxes were collected but not paid. So, no penalty is imposable under the said provision.
25. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Both the appeals filed by the Appellants are allowed with consequential relief, as per law.
(Order pronounced in open court on - 10.03.2025) (P. K. CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) LKS