Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs Cce, Chandigarh Ii on 10 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, Sector 17-C,
CHANDIGARH
COURT NO. I
DATE OF HEARING : 10/08/2016.
DATE OF DECISION : 10/08/2016.
Excise Appeal Nos. 50272-50273 of 2015
[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 42/CE/CHD-II/2014 dated 25/09/2014 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh.]
For Approval and signature :
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Department Authorities?
M/s Welspun Corporation Limited ] Appellants
M/s Welspun Project Limited ]
Versus
CCE, Chandigarh II Respondent
Appearance
S/Shri Vikram Nankani and Vishal Agarwal, Advocates for the appellants.
Shri Atul Honda, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 61128-61129/2016 Dated : 10/08/2016
Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The appellants M/s Welspun Corporation Limited (WCL) and M/s Welspun Project Limited (WPL) are in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that both the appellants are manufacturer of various types of pipes and M/s WCL acquired unit in July, 2012 and started manufacturing the pipes. On 05/3/12 WPL received an order for supply of pipes from GMADA. As per the condition of the purchase order the pipes, in question to be supplied to GMADA are subject to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17/3/2012 wherein if GMADA is able to obtain exemption under the said notification, the WCL is required to supply the pipes without payment of duty. If GMADA failed to get the exemption certificate, in that case duty is to be paid on the pipes. The said supply order was further issued by M/s WPL to M/s WCL on 20th July, 2012. M/s WCL on receipt of the purchase order, procured the inputs and availed cenvat credit therein and started manufacturing the pipes. On 20th August 2012, GMADA was able to obtain exemption certificate, in that circumstances, M/s WCL cleared the pipes during the period September 2012 till 04/11/12 without payment of duty as per the exemption certificate on payment of an amount equal to 6% of the value of goods cleared by them. On 05/11/12 M/s WPL further issued a purchase order for supply of pipes on M/s WCL on payment of duty, as no exemption is available for those pipes. From 5/11/12 onwards, M/s WCL was clearing pipes without payment of duty as well as on payment of duty.
3. On the basis of intelligence that M/s WCL is availing cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used for manufacture of exempted goods, the proceedings were initiated against both the appellants. After detailed enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to both the appellants for the period 05/11/12 to 19/3/13 to deny cenvat credit availed on inputs on the premise that M/s WCL is clearing exempted final products, therefore, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit as per Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The matter was adjudicated and the cenvat credit was denied consequently the duty was demanded (equivalent to the cenvat credit denied) alongwith interest and penalties on both the appellants were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us.
4. Shri Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Vishal Agarwal, Advocate, learned Counsels for the appellants submits that the appellant (M/s WCL) received the order for supply of pipes on 20/7/12 and at the time of receipt of the said order, M/s WCL was not knowing that whether goods are required to be cleared under exemption certificate or not. In fact exemption was obtained only in the month of August 2012 and M/s WCL started manufacturing prior to that. In that circumstances, Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and as per the said rule, if the appellant is not maintaining separate account of inputs used in manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted final product, in that case the appellant is required to pay an amount of 6% of the value of exempted final product. It is their contention that they had complied with the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, the proceedings are not to be initiated against the appellants. To support their contentions they relied on the decision namely CCE, Thane I vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 321 (Bom.), Sobha Developers Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 214 (Tri. Bang.), Hetero Labs Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 716 (Tri. Bang.), Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. Del.) and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 149 (Raj.).
5. On the other hand learned AR submits that till 05/11/12 the appellant. M/s WCL was manufacturing only and only exempted final product and the same has been cleared by the appellant. Therefore, till 05/11/12 whatever inputs used in manufacturing of exempted final product are not entitle for cenvat credit, therefore, he supported the impugned order.
6. Heard the parties considered the submissions.
7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that facts of the case are not in dispute that on 05/3/12 GMADA issued a purchase order on M/s WPL for supply of pipe of particular quantity with a condition that if GMADA is able to obtain exemption certificate, prior to supply of the goods, in that case no excise duty is payable on the said goods and if GMADA fail to obtain exemption certificate, the duty is payable. The sole contention of the Revenue is that as till 05/11/12 the appellant (WCL) has cleared exempted final product, which was not liable to pay duty under the exemption certificate obtained by GMADA in that circumstances M/s WCL is not entitle to take cenvat credit on inputs. We do agree with the contention of the learned AR that if the appellant is manufacturing only and only exempted final product, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit on inputs but in this case at the time of procurement of order by M/s WCL from M/s WPL on 20th July, 2012, the character of the final goods was not known whether the final goods are exempted or dutiable. It was the condition of the purchase order that if GMADA failed to obtain exemption certificate, the goods are dutiable. Admittedly on 20th July, 2012 GMADA had not obtained exemption certificate. In that circumstances on 20th July, 2012 the goods which are to be manufactured by M/s WCL were having the character of dutiable goods. In that circumstances, cenvat credit on inputs was available to M/s WCL. As M/s WCL procured the inputs for manufacturing final dutiable goods, later on, on production of exemption certificate, the goods were cleared without payment of duty but by reversing 6% of the value of exempted final product is in accordance of law.
8. Admittedly, in this case the appellant has cleared goods on payment of duty and without payment of duty under exemption certificate and appellant is not maintaining separate account of inputs used for manufacturing of dutiable as well as final exempted product in that circumstances provisions of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable to the facts of the case, which the appellant has complied with by reversing 6% of the value of final exempted goods at the time of their clearance.
9. The sole contention of the Revenue is that till 05/11/12 the appellant were manufacturing only and only exempted goods. The said contention is not tenable, as on 05/11/12, itself the appellant has cleared dutiable goods. If the appellant has not manufactured the dutiable goods prior to 05/11/02, in that circumstances how the goods were cleared on 05/11/12 on payment of duty. Therefore, the Revenue has failed to appreciate the fact that inputs are available for credit at the time of start of manufacture of the goods. There is a great difference between manufacture and their clearance. In this case manufacturing process started much earlier before the date when the exemption certificate was obtained by M/s GMADA. Prior to obtaining the exemption certificate, the character of final manufactured goods was dutiable, in that circumstances, the cenvat credit availed by the appellant is in accordance of law. The same view was taken by Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Thane I vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. (supra) wherein the Honble High Court of Bombay has observed as under :-
18.?Let us now consider Rule 6. On a plain reading of Rule 6(1), it is obvious that if inputs are used in the manufacture of exempted goods, credit is not allowed except in the circumstances mentioned under sub-rule (2) which has already been reproduced. A manufacturer who avails of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final products which are chargeable to duty as also exempted goods, the manufacturer has to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products and the quantity of inputs used for the manufacture of exempted goods and takes Cenvat credit only on that quantity of inputs which are used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. A plain reading of this rule does not lead to any ambiguity, absurdity or defeat the provisions of the Act. The submission on behalf of the respondents that this would defeat the provisions of the Act and the rules, atleast we are not in a position to understand on a clear and literal interpretation of Rule 6(2). Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2) read together mean that inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products no cenvat credit is allowed. It may however happen that the inputs are used in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable goods, in which event if the register as required is maintained the credit can be taken for the quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. If records are not maintained as required, the duty has to be paid in terms of Rule 6(3). The presumptive tax payable in terms of Rule 6(3) has been recognised and accepted by the Supreme Court in Ballarpur Industries (supra) while construing Rule 57CC. Rule 6(1) does not lead to the construction that if the manufacturer without maintaining the books, does not take credit for the duty paid on inputs for manufacture of exempted goods. Rule 6(1) is satisfied. Rule 6(1) is satisfied only when the requirements of the Rule 6(2) are satisfied, what requires register to be maintained for separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of the inputs. Rule 6(3) then provides that if separate accounts are not maintained then the amount as set out thus has to be paid by a manufacturer who does not maintain accounts.
19.?It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, is attracted only when the assessee does not want to comply with sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 by reversing the credit. In other words, it is submitted that it is only when the assessee wants an exemption as also credit that the assessee has to comply with Rule 6(3)(b). In our opinion, such a construction militates against Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(3) (b) as also Rule 6(2). The rule has to be read together to understand the object of the Rule. Once a manufacturer, manufactures from common inputs two final products, one dutiable and the other exempted. Rule 6(2) would be attracted and on failure to maintain separate records, Rule 6(3) would apply. Rule 6(1) in such an event would result in denying to the manufacture Cenvat credit, Once the inputs are used in the manufacture of exempted goods irrespective whether such inputs are used in the manufacture of dutiable goods. Such manufacturer can avail of credit only in terms of Rule 6(3).
20.?The option to pay 8% or 10% under sub-rule (3) it is submitted, is not available to goods covered by Rule 3(a). Rule 3 in so far as (a) is concerned in respect of exempted goods set out therein. On failure to maintain accounts the rule imposes on the manufacturer a burden to pay an amount equivalent to the credit attributed to the inputs used in relation to the manufacture of such final products at the time of clearance from the factory. This argument in our opinion has no relevance in construing Rule 6(1) and 6(2).
Further, in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore (supra), this Tribunal again observed as under :-
15.?According to Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, exempted service means taxable services which are exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon and includes service on which no service tax is leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that exemption contemplated under Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not an absolute and unconditional exemption and Rule 6(1) does not cover exemptions which are subject to condition and tax is recoverable from the supplier or from the receiver if the conditions are not fulfilled. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune [1994 (69) E.L.T. 122 (Tri.-Mumbai)] in which a view was taken that even though Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 is an exemption Notification, it cannot be equated with other exemptions and accordingly, it was held that when finished goods were cleared under Notification No. 217/86, it would not lead to application of Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules which is similar to the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. Further, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune [2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-L.B.)], affirmed this view. The view of the Larger Bench in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) has been upheld by the Honble High Court of Bombay as reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. A89 (Bom.). We have considered the submissions. We find that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra) and Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. In this case also, the services are allowed to be provided to SEZ units/developer, subject to conditions which are required to be fulfilled by SEZ developer/unit. This is similar to erstwhile Chapter X Procedure in Central Excise Rules, 1944 which was a subject-matter in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra) which considered the Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. In Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. case (supra) the Tribunal was considering the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 in which the goods are allowed to be cleared without payment of duty by job worker subject to conditions which are required to be fulfilled by the raw material supplier. The relevant paragraphs of both the judgments are reproduced below for better appreciation :
Para 7.2 to 7.6 of judgment in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. (supra) -
7.2?Under the Modvat scheme, credit of duty paid on notified inputs is to be given for payment of duty on the notified final products, if such inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and such inputs are not hit by explanation to Rule 57A. This same concept is clearly discernible in Notification 217/86. This notification is mainly intended to avert payment of duty at each intermediate stage and take credit of such duty at each subsequent stage, starting from the basic materials, turning out components and finally ending with the ultimate final product. Such a vertical integration of production line can be in one and the same factory or spread over two or more factories of the same manufacturer. In such cases Notification 217/86 can be availed. They also can take Modvat credit on primary inputs used in the manufacture of secondary inputs (M. V. parts, I.C. engines) so long as the final product namely Motor vehicle pays duty. Hence, we are to agree with the ld. counsel Shri Lodha that Notification 217/86 stands on a different footing, when it comes for consideration for purposes of applying Rule 57C. It is not like any other exemption, where intention is to forego the levy on the products cleared from the factory.
........................................
7.4?Another argument of ld. JDR is that in the case of exemption applicable to products removed to 100% EOU, a specific exception has been made in Rule 57C and in the absence of any such exception being provided in the case of Notification 217/86, such products cleared under Chapter X procedure for further manufacture of final products in terms of the above Notification 217/86, are only to be construed as goods exempted, thereby attracting Rule 57C. We have carefully considered this argument. But we find that in the case of exemption for goods removed to 100% EOU, such products are totally exempted and even the final export products turned out from these items in the 100% EOU are not to suffer any duty. Hence in that case, the Government, as a policy measure for freeing the export products from the burden of any input levy, have to specifically provide for an exception in Rule 57C. But in the case of Notification 217/86, the final products manufactured out of inputs are required to suffer duty and hence the chain of credit is extended upto the stage of final product, which is to be cleared on payment of duty. This is what emerges from a combined reading of Notification 217/86 and Rule 57C.
........................................
7.6?Hence, the scope of Rule 57C in a situation like the present one, is to be construed in the context of the Modvat scheme and not to destroy that concept. Any interpretation in such a situation has to be to give effect to Notification 217/86 and not to take away the benefit of averting duty payment at each stage in the line of production. Hence, a mechanical application of Rule 57C, is to be avoided, since it destroys the very benefit, which is otherwise available under the scheme right from stage one to the final stage. In the case of disintegrated production, credit is available from stage one by paying duty at each finished stage and taking credit of such duty in the other units down the line, whereas in the case of vertically integrated production units the same benefit is sought to be conferred by averting payment of duty at each stage and postponing the availment of credit to the final stage of manufacture. This is how, we could interpret the provisions of Rule 57C in the context of Notification 217/86. Any other interpretation will frustrate the object of the scheme, apart from leading to discrimination between vertically integrated production line and laterally disintegrated production amongst different units. Para 3 & 4 of the judgment in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. (supra) -
3.?We are also in agreement with the appellants contention that Rule 57C debars taking of credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product, if final product is exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to nil rate of duty. As such, to attract the provisions of Rule 57C, two situations in respect of the final product should be satisfied. Either the final product should be exempted, which situation can arise only when there is an exemption notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act or the final product is chargeable to nil rate of duty. Expression chargeable to nil rate of duty or exempted from whole of duty was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Orissa Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Ex. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 350 (Tri.)] and after taking note of the Ministries clarifications issued vide Circular No. 10/75/CX. 6, it was held that clearance under goods under provision of 191BB for export without payment of duty would not get covered by the above expression. Reference was made to the advice received from the Ministry of Law dealt in the paragraph of 9 in the said decision. It was opined in the said letter of the Law Ministry that the term exempted has a definite connotation. The same as attributed to the notification issued by the Central Government. Similarly, the chargeable to nil rate of duty would refer to the tariff rate being nil and the goods cleared in terms of provision of Rule 199BB would not be covered by the said expression inasmuch as the same are not chargeable to nil rate. In the present case, we find the job worker could have cleared the goods on payment of duty and manufacturer could have claimed credit of the same. It is only under the special procedure laid down in terms of the Rule 57F(3) that the duty does not get paid at the job workers end at the time of clearance of the goods, but ultimately gets paid at the manufacturers end. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the decision rendered in the case of Bajaj Tempo and Jindal Polymers.
4.?In only case of Escorts Ltd. v. C.C. Ex, Delhi [2003 (160) E.L.T. 623 (Tri.-Del.)] while interpreting Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal rejected the appellants claim of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the parts, which were cleared without payment of duty to, appellants other unit under Chapter X procedure and utilised in the manufacture of tractor which were cleared on payment of duty by observing that since no duty was paid on the part at the time of clearance, Rule 57C will apply and no Modvat credit would be admissible. However, the said decision was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court as reported in Escort v. C.C Ex. [2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)]. For appreciation, we reproduce paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said decision.
8.?It is to be seen that the whole purpose of the Notification and the Rules is to streamlines the process of payment of duty and to prevent the cascading effect if duty is levied both on the inputs and the finished goods. Rule 57D(2), which has been extracted hereinabove, shows that in the manufacture of a final product an intermediate product may also come into existence. Thus in cases where intermediate product comes into existence, even though no duty has been chargeable to Nil rate of duty, credit would still be allowed so long as duty is paid on the final product.
9.?In cases of manufacturers like the Appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer. By applying the ratio of the above decision, it becomes clear that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C. Inasmuch as, the matter stands decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, we would hold in favour of assessee. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Notification No. 4/2004-S.T., dated 31-3-2004 read with Rule 25 of SEZ Act, 2005 [(sic) Rules, 2006] is a conditional exemption and therefore, the above decisions apply and demand/restriction under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not apply.
Further, in the case of Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut (supra) this Tribunal has observed as under :-
7.?A question arises as to when capital goods are used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final product, whether for availing capital goods credit, the dutiable as well as exempted final product have to be manufactured simultaneously. In our view this is not necessary, and Cenvat credit would be admissible even if the capital goods are used for manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods at different points of time. However, if at the time of receipt of the capital goods, the manufacturer was using the capital goods only for manufacture of fully exempted final product and had no plan or intention to use them for dutiable final products and later on, either the final product becomes dutiable or he changes his plans and starts using the capital goods for manufacture of dutiable final products, the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshni Ltd. (supra) and Spenta International Ltd. v. CCE, Thane (supra) would become applicable. But, if at the time of receipt, the manufacturer had clear intention to use the capital goods for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products, in such a situation just because at the time of receipt, he uses the capital goods for manufacture of exempted final product and subsequently he switches over to the manufacture of dutiable final product, the capital goods Cenvat credit cannot be denied. When at the time of receipt of capital goods, capable of use in manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products, there is evidence to show that the manufacturer had intention to use them for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final product, the eligibility of the capital goods for Cenvat credit cannot depend upon the order in which the same are used - whether first for the manufacture of exempted final products or for the manufacture of dutiable final product.
Further, in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra), the Honble Rajasthan High court has observed as under :-
27.?It appears that the combined effect of Sub-Rule (9), sub-Rule (1) of Rule 57CC and the substantive scheme of availing Modvat credit in respect of inputs, the decisive date for the assessees entitlement to Modvat credit is not postponed to the date of clearance. The operation of Rule 57CC is also to be seen as on the date the manufacturer becomes entitled to avail Modvat credit. It is with reference to said date his obligation to maintain separate inventory about the use of inputs by him can be operated so as to dis-entitle the manufacturer from availing Modvat credit at all in respect of final product/goods manufactured by him which is exempt from whole Duty or is chargeable to nil rate of duty or is not chargeable to duty at all. Rule 57CC does not speak of adjustment of any duty which is not ultimately paid on the final product on clearance due to certain contingency arising in future. In other words, the availing of Modvat credit is not postponed. When Rule 57CC operates at the time when the assessee claims his entitlement to Modvat credit and state of affairs existing at that time can alone be seen to find out whether the end product of the assessee which is more than one are chargeable to duty or are exempted from the whole of the duty or are chargeable to nil rate of duty.
33.?It can be seen from yet another angle. In case inputs are received in factory and used in manufacture of end product. But the end product is destroyed by fire before stage of its removal from factory premise. In such circumstances, no excise duty becomes payable on end product. Yet Modvat credit availed on inputs used in destroyed goods is not to be recalled. This is also suggestive of the fact the relevant date for considering exemption from duty of the end product in or in relation to which inputs are used is the date of its receipt in factory and condition is its actual use in or in relation to manufacture of end product by the manufacturer. The chargeability to duty or non-chargeability due to exemption or notified nil rate is to be considered at the stage before goods are actually produced, but on receipt of inputs intended to be used in manufacture of such goods. That being so ultimate clearance of goods at nil rate due to contingency existing at the time of removal does not affect the entitlement that legally arises long before that date.
10. We also take note of the fact that the appellant has paid an amount of 6% of the value of exempted final product at the time of clearance of final exempted product by utilizing their cenvat credit account. The Adjudicating Authority has not considered the fact that cenvat credit to the extent of 6% of the value of exempted final product has already been reversed and the set of the same has not granted which reveals that the demand to the extent of reversal 6% of the value of exempted goods twice taxing the appellants which is not permissible in law.
11. In view of above discussion, as M/s WCL availed cenvat credit on the inputs for manufacturing of their final product before production of exemption certificate by M/s GMADA, the appellant has rightly availed cenvat credit on inputs. Consequently the impugned order lacks merits, hence, the same is set aside.
12. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK 1