Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ajinomoto India Pvt Ltd vs Chennai( Port Import) on 21 August, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Customs Appeal No.41402 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 540/2014 dated 26.3.2014 passed by the
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Ajinomoto India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
No. 12/1, Poonamallee High Road
Vellappanchavadi, Chennai - 600 077.
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs Respondent
Chennai II Commissionerate Custom House No. 60, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600001.
APPEARANCE:
Shri K. Sivarajan, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri P. Narasimha Rao, Authorized Representative and Smt. O.M. Reena, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 41101/2024 Date of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date of Decision: 21.08.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, This appeal is filed against Order in Appeal C. Cus. No. 540/2014 dated 26.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Ajinomoto India Pvt. Ltd. (Ajinomoto India) the appellant imported Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) from Ajinomoto Thailand Ltd. (Ajinomoto Thailand) and marketed it in India based on the trademark agreement entered into between the appellant, Ajinomoto India and Ajinomoto, Japan (Ajinomoto Japan). In terms of the said agreement, Ajinomoto, India 2 C/41402/2014 was directed to pay royalty on the repacked MSG supplied to the retail market and the food industry carrying the trademark. The quantum of MSG supplied to industrial consumers was outside the purview of royalty payments. The adjudicating authority held that in terms of Rule 10(1)(c) & (e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR 2007) appellant is liable to add royalty @1% on the net domestic sales of repacked MSG to the invoice price of the imported goods from Ajinomoto Co. Thailand Ltd. He further held that professional charges are to be added to the invoice price under Rule 10(1)(e) ibid. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the portion of the order whereby royalty of 1% was ordered addable to the invoice price of the imported goods and set aside that portion of the order allowing the addition of 'Professional charges' to the invoice price. Hence the appellant has filed this appeal against the inclusion of royalty to the invoice price. 2.1 No cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-department.
3. Shri K. Sivarajan, learned Chartered Accountant appeared for the appellant and Shri P. Narasimha Rao, learned Commissioner (AR) and Smt. O.M. Reena, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appeared for the respondent.
3.1 The learned Chartered Accountant submitted that in the instant case, the appellant Ajinomoto India is a company incorporated on 7 October 2003 with 90% of the subscribed capital held by Ajinomoto Thailand who is the supplier of the imported MSG and 10% by Ajinomoto Japan, who are the trade mark holders and to whom royalty is paid. The appellant engages in the business of import, manufacture and trading of food additives and taste enhancers. With respect to the 3 C/41402/2014 subject goods, MSG, the Appellant (a) either imports the goods in bulk (in 25 Kilogram Packs) and sells it to Industrial customers without trade mark and without paying royalty or the imported MSG is sold after being subject to manufacturing process (repacking and labeling) into smaller portions and the same is labelled with the trade mark before clearance on sale to retail and food industry for which the Appellant pays royalty to Ajinomoto Japan @ 1% on the Net Domestic Sales value of the said goods or (b) imports the MSG packed in the form of small packs ready for sale as such to retail and food industry for which no royalty is paid. Ajinomoto India also uses the MSG imported in bulk as raw material, in the manufacture of some of its other value-added products which are not subject to this appeal. In case of import in bulk and repacking in India, the Appellant domestically procures packing materials, machinery and equipment, spares for machinery etc., as required for repacking. Furthermore, neither the licensor nor the supplier impose any restrictions/conditions on such domestic procurements. Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the CETA specifies that labeling or relabeling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable shall amount to manufacture. The activity of repacking of MSG in small packs undertaken by the appellant M/s. Ajinomoto India is liable to discharge excise duty on clearance. The Ld. CA submits that royalty is to be paid not on the imported goods, but on the MSG repacked from bulk to small packets which is deemed to be manufactured goods and sold in retail packs after affixing trademarks in India. It is undisputed that the license to use trademark is paid to Ajinomoto Japan and the goods are imported from Ajinomoto 4 C/41402/2014 Thailand. There is no payment by Ajinomoto India directly or indirectly to Ajinomoto Thailand as a condition of sale of the imported MSG. Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR 2007 can be invoked only if it is a pre-condition of sale of imported goods. Hence for the stated reasons, payment of royalty @ 1% based on Trademark License Agreement by adding it to the transaction value is untenable. The appellant has further filed a Miscellaneous Application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 for admission of "Additional Grounds of Appeal". They have stated that that they had inadvertently annexed the Trademark License Agreement dated April 2011, instead of Trademark License Agreement dated 28 November 2003 in the set of documents filed for Appeal No. Customs/41402/2014 filed before on 25 June 2014. They assure that this error was unintentional and occurred due to oversight. The Ld. CA prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
3.2 The learned ARs submitted on behalf of the respondent- department that Ajinomoto India, Thailand and Japan are related parties, so the argument that royalty on 1% net sales goes to Ajinomoto Thailand is immaterial as these are the internal financial arrangements between the three parties. Without the import of MSG the Indian company cannot use the trademark obtained from Ajinomoto Japan, vide an agreement dated 28/11/2003. Hence it is clear that royalty amount paid and payable is related to the imported goods. Further the explanation to Rule 10 of CVR 2007 states that royalty, license fee or any other payment includable for a process whether patented or otherwise shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. In the impugned case, even though the trade mark agreement entered is silent about the inclusion of the 5 C/41402/2014 cost of imported goods or conveniently tailor-made/ worded only as royalty of 1% of the net sale of the repacked finished products, it is construed or it is implicit that the final products sold cannot be to the exclusion of the import price. By default, the price/cost of the import goods are implicitly included in the net sale value of the final product whether packed or otherwise manufactured. Thus, trademark agreement with the consideration clause of royalty of 1% on net sale value itself is a condition of sale of the imported goods, without which the import would not have materialized. They hence prayed that the appeal may be rejected.
4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the appeal papers carefully. The appellant has requested for admission of "Additional Grounds of Appeal" regarding the 'inadvertently' annexed Trademark License Agreement dated 04/2011, instead of the Agreement dated 28/11/2003. The power to allow additional evidence at the Tribunal level, whether on fact or law, oral or documentary is discretionary in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chittoori Subbanna Vs Kudappa Subbanna (AIR 1965 SC 1325) has recogonised that, it is possible to include additional grounds in the grounds of appeal, by moving a separate application for permission. We find that the additional evidence sought to be adduced is permissible if it is not filed only to fill in gaps or restore weak areas in the case etc. and instead it is material for deciding the rights of the parties that are the subject of the lis by removing the cloud of doubt over the case. That the additional evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the dispute and interest of justice clearly requires that it may be allowed on record. We find that the issue of 6 C/41402/2014 royalty depends on examining the correct Agreement in force during the relevant period and hence allow their request. We also find that the appellant has objected to certain new issue of law raised by the respondent, stating that they are beyond the observations made by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority who passed the Order in Original. A point of law which is relevant and material and can be argued without any further evidence being taken, can be allowed to be raised at any time. [see Chitturi Subbanna Vs Kudapa Subbanna & Others - 1965 AIR 1325 / 1965 SCR (2) 661]. Many a time such points arise from the averments and as a counter to legal positions that are taken at the time of making submissions. With the appellant taking the help of subsequent day judgments and legal issues that have crystalised after a passage of time, revenue cannot be asked to contest the same with one arm tied to its back, by way of denying any fresh arguments on a point of law not taken before the Original Authority. Averments on a point of law helps in giving a rounded view and in making good law. We hence permit the same.
5. Before taking up the issues involved, the relevant paragraphs of the 'Trademark License Agreement' which is at the core of the dispute is reproduced below;
TRADEMARK LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 28th day of November, 2003 by and between Ajinomoto Co., Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at 15-1, Kyobashi 1-Chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104- 8315, Japan ("LICENSOR") and Ajinomoto India Private Limited, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of India, with its principal place of business at No. 25, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, India ("LICENSEE"), WITNESSETH:
7
C/41402/2014 WHEREAS, LICENSOR owns certain trademarks and has an exclusive proprietary right on such trademarks; and WHEREAS, LICENSEE is desirous to use LICENSOR's certain trademarks on monosodium glutamate product which LICENSEE manufactures under the license of the related know-how owned by LICENSOR in the Territory as defined below; and WHEREAS, LICENSOR is willing to grant to LICENSEE the right to use its certain trademarks on LICENSEE's monosodium glutamate product in accordance with terms and conditions set forth hereunder.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Article 1. Definition As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Product" shall mean the small portion size of monosodium glutamate product repackaged by LICENSEE using certain know-
how owned by LICENSOR, the monosodium glutamate in which is supplied by LICENSOR or LICENSOR's affiliated company. (2) "Territory" shall mean the Republic of India. (3) "Trademark" shall mean the trademarks that LICENSOR has applied for registration in the Territory indicated in Appendix A attached hereto.
(4) The term "use" employed herein relating to the Trademark shall, regardless of its part of speech or its tense in verbal form, mean the act of indicating the Trademark on the containers, packages and labels of the Product, or indicating or referring to the Trademark in pamphlets, leaflets, or advertisements in newspapers, magazines, television, radio, or other advertising materials or advertising media as well as the documents and stationery.
(5) The term (Manufacture") employed herein relating to the Product, regardless of its part of speech or its tense in verbal form, shall mean the repackaging of the Product by LICENSEE using certain know- how owned by LICENSOR.
(6) "Net Sales" shall mean the gross invoice price of the Product with the Trademark, less only discounts, accepted returns from LICENSEE's customers, breakage, transport costs, insurance and excise or other sales taxes to the extent that they are included in the gross invoice price, unless otherwise required by governmental regulations.
(7) "Execution Date" shall mean the date first above written. Article 2. Grant of License
1. LICENSOR hereby grants to LICENSEE a non-exclusive and non- transferable license, with no right to sublicense, to use the Trademark on the Product in the Territory ("License"). 8
C/41402/2014
2. It is agreed and understood that the Trademark shall remain as the sole and exclusive property of LICENSOR and nothing herein contained shall be construed to give LICENSEE or any other party any right, title or interest, except otherwise specifically provided for herein, or to grant the right to use the Trademark or similar marks to any products other than the Product.
Article 3. Consideration As consideration for the License granted hereunder, LICENSEE shall pay to LICENSOR a royalty of one percent (1.00%) of the Net Sales of the Product bearing the Trademark and sold by LICENSEE.
6. We find that, the main issue involved is the inclusion of royalty to determine the value of the imported MSG, involving related parties. Even so this is not the case of rejection of transaction value but the addition of certain charges to the price actually paid or payable. The departments case rests on the scope of Rule 10(1)(c) and Rule 10(1)(e) of CVR, 2007, which is extracted below for easy reference:
"10. Cost and services.-
(1) In determining the transaction value, there shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods,-
(a) ............
(b) ...................
(c) Royalties and licence fees related to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the goods being valued, to the extent that such royalties and fees are not included in the price actually paid or payable.
(d) ..............
(e) All other payments actually made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods, by the buyer to the seller, or by the buyer to a third party to satisfy an obligation of the seller to the extent that such payments are not included in the price actually paid or payable.
Explanation.- Where the royalty, licence fee or any other payment for a process, whether patented or otherwise, is includible referred to in clauses (c) and (e), such charges shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, notwithstanding the fact that such goods may be subjected to the said process after importation of such goods.
7. The Rule makes it clear that the royalties and licence fees should relate to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly 9 C/41402/2014 or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of the goods. Hence the fact that the trademark belongs to a group company (Ajinomoto Japan) will not matter so long as there is no evidence adduced to establish that royalty is paid as a condition of sale of the impugned goods. Moreover as per the order of the Ld. Original Authority the value declared by the importer is acceptable under rule 3(3)(a) of CVR 2007. The appellant states that the payment of royalty by them is purely for the license to use trademark and is paid to Ajinomoto Japan. It is not a condition of sale by Ajinomoto Thailand.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 AIR SC 1633 / 2008 (4) SCC 563], examined a similar issue involving Rule 9 of CVR 1988 which is in pari materia with Rule 10 of CVR 2007. The Hon'ble Court held;
16. Under rule 9(1)(c), the cost of technical know-how and payment of royalty is includible in the price of the imported goods if the said payment constitutes a condition pre-requisite for the supply of the imported goods by the foreign supplier. If such a condition exists then the payment made towards technical know-how and royalties has to be included in the price of the imported goods. On the other hand, if such payment has no nexus with the working of the imported goods then such payment was not includible in the price of the imported goods.
17. . . . . .
18. Royalties and licence fees related to the imported goods is the cost which is incurred by the buyer in addition to the price which the buyer has to pay as consideration for the purchase of the imported goods. In other words, in addition to the price for the imported goods the buyer incurs costs on account of royalty and licence fee which the buyer pays to the foreign supplier for using information, patent, trade mark and know-how in the manufacture of the licensed product in India. Therefore, there are two concepts which operate simultaneously, namely, price for the imported goods and the royalties/licence fees which are also paid to the foreign supplier. Rule 9(1)(c) stipulates that payments made towards technical know-how must be a condition pre-requisite for the supply of imported goods by the foreign supplier and if such condition exists then such royalties and fees have to be included in the price of the imported goods. Under rule 9(1)(c) the cost of technical know-how is included if the same is to be paid, directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of imported goods. At this stage, we would like to emphasis the word 10 C/41402/2014 indirectly in rule 9(1)(c). As stated above, the buyer/importer makes payment of the price of the imported goods. He also incurs the cost of technical know-how. Therefore, the Department in every case is not only required to look at TAA, it is also required to look at the pricing arrangement/agreement between the buyer and his foreign collaborator. For example if on examination of the pricing arrangement in juxtaposition with the TAA, the Department finds that the importer/buyer has misled the Department by adjusting the price of the imported item in guise of increased royalty/licence fees then the adjudicating authority would be right in including the cost of royalty/licence fees payment in the price of the imported goods. In such cases the principle of attribution of royalty/licence fees to the price of imported goods would apply. This is because every importer/buyer is obliged to pay not only the price for the imported goods but he also incurs the cost of technical know- how which is paid to the foreign supplier. Therefore, such adjustments would certainly attract rule 9(1))(c).
(emphasis applied)
9. Revenue has referred to the explanation to Rule 10 of CVR 2007 which states that, 'where the royalty, license fee or any other payment for a process whether patented or otherwise, is includible referred to in Clause (c) & (e), such charges shall be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, notwithstanding the fact that such goods may be subjected to the said process after importation of such goods'. Normally, an Explanation does not expand or limit the scope of the main provision unless the Explanation purports to be a definition or a deeming clause, which is not the case here. It was held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in N. Govindaraju Vs I.T.O. [(2015) 377-ITR-243 (Karnataka)] that a section has to be understood and read hand in hand with the Explanation, which is only to support the main provision, like an example does to explain any situation.
10. As per the appellant 'condition of sale' of the goods arises only when the payment of royalty / license fee is insisted on for supply of goods and there is no such finding in the instant case. We find that the royalty in this case has been paid for the use of trademark and not for a process. Secondly where the royalty is includible as referred to in 11 C/41402/2014 clauses (c) and (e) above, the use of such a process should also emanate from the condition of sale for it to be added to the price actually paid or payable. Thirdly while Rule 10(1)(c) states that royalty could be paid directly or indirectly, we find that the transaction value has been accepted and revenue has not alleged, let alone proved, that there was any financial flow back between Ajinomoto India and Japan or Thailand so as to influence the transaction value of imported MSG. Hence since royalty is not made a condition of sale for import by Ajinomoto India either by Ajinomoto Thailand or by Ajinomoto Japan, the 'Explanation' to Rule 10(1) does not adversely affect the transaction price and royalty cannot be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods.
11. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has stated that the main objection of the appellant for non-inclusion of the royalty amount to the invoice price of the imported goods is that the said goods undergo manufacturing process, and the appellant pays excise duty on such manufacturing process by including the royalty amount. The Ld. Commissioner felt that the term 'manufacturer' is having a different meaning under the Central Excise Act and the repacking and relabelling activity carried out by the appellant may be considered as manufacture under the customs act but the same is not true with the Central Excise Act. According to him the activity or process in order to amount to manufacture must lead to the emergence of a new commercial product different from the one with which the process started, having a different name character and use. Thus, the royalty of 1% emerging out of the trademark license agreement is 12 C/41402/2014 directly relatable to the imported goods and is necessarily addable to the invoice price of the imported goods under rule 10 of CVR 2007.
12. Prima facie the reasoning of the Ld. Commissioner is not valid as he does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the process amounts to manufacture or not under the Central Excise Act. Perhaps for this reason he failed to notice that it is not merely by a change in the name, character and use of a product that manufacture takes place, it can also happen when a process is deemed to be manufacture, as included under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In any case as per the Customs Act, 1962, the charge of incidence of duty attaches itself as soon as the taxable event takes place. Accordingly, the value of the imported goods etc has to be determined at the time and place of importation for assessment to be completed. The facility of postponing collection of duty from the point the taxable event occurs to a later stage, has been factored in under the Customs Act and Rules for administrative convenience. This would not affect the incidence of duty so long as the character of the impost, is not lost. The taxable event in the case of import of goods was examined by the Apex Court in Garden Silk Mills Ltd Vs Union of India [1999 (113) E.L.T. 358 (S.C.)]. The Hon'ble Court held;
"16.. . . . It would appear to us that the import of goods into India would commence when the same cross into the territorial waters but continues and is completed when the goods become part of the mass of goods within the country; the taxable event being reached at the time when the goods reach the customs barriers and the bill of entry for home consumption is filed."
In the impugned case the manner of domestic sale is not part and parcel of the condition of import. Hence postponing the collection of duty to the time of domestic sale of the goods after being repacked under a trademark, amounting to manufacture, appears far too remote 13 C/41402/2014 to retain the character of a Customs impost. The nexus between the imported goods and those being sold cannot be said to exist. As per the impugned order, the royalty is ordered to be paid for activities post customs clearance after the goods no longer retain the identity of the imported goods and are worked upon for sale domestically containing the trademark.
13. In R.C. Jall v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 1281 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 436, 451] the Apex Court held that a tax can be levied at a convenient stage so long as the character of the impost, is not lost. However once the goods are assessed and cleared for home consumption, they no longer retain the identity of the imported goods [See Naitik Enterprise Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) - Special Civil Application No. 833 of 2019, Dated: 02/05/2019, para 7]. In this state when they are repacked with a tradename involving a royalty, which was not a condition for sale by the seller at the time of their import, it could not be added to the price actually paid or payable at the time of import.
14. Revenue has pointed to the existence of an agreement for payment of royalty to Ajinomoto Japan even prior to the import of the impugned goods into India. Further it is stated that the value on which royalty is paid is inclusive of cost of imported goods and hence payment of royalty is related to imported MSG and is as a result of condition of sale. As stated earlier the Agreement cited by revenue is between Ajinomoto India and Ajinomoto Japan and does not involve Ajinomoto Thailand from where the goods were imported. No quantity has been fixed for being repacked and sold with a trademark. The Original Authority has found that the declared transaction value of the imported 14 C/41402/2014 MSG is acceptable. Payment of royalty is not a condition of sale. Even the royalty paid to Ajinomoto Japan is not to be paid on the process of packing/ manufacture but only on the use of trademark. In such a situation Ajinomoto India is free to sell the goods domestically after it crosses the Customs barrier. If the domestic buyer of the goods has an independent agreement with Ajinomoto Japan to pay royalty on use of trademark on repacked goods for domestic sale, surely Ajinomoto India would not have been saddled with the additional cost of the royalty to its transaction value. We do not find why they should be worse off if they do the same activity themselves.
15. Revenue has relied on the following judgments to support the inclusion of royalty paid on net sales to the value of import;
(a) Commissioner of C.Ex, Mumbai vs Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (341) ELT 257 (Tri-Mumbai)]
(b) Fujitsu Ten India Pvt Ltd Vs Comer of Cus., New Delhi [2018 (362) 875 T-Del].
(c) Matsushita Television & Audio (I) Ltd vs Comm of Customs, Mumbai [2007 (211) ELT 200 (SC)]
16. Royalty or payments for use of intellectual property etc, differ from business to business and there is no standard format. Hence each judgment is an authority in the setting of its own facts and terms of agreement. The Tribunal judgments in Herbalife International and Fujitsu Ten India Pvt Ltd are based on the Apex Courts Judgment in Matsushita Television & Audio. The said judgment in Matsushita was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and it was held that the pricing arrangement and TAA are both to be seen by the Department. If the 'Consideration Clause' indicates 15 C/41402/2014 that the importer/buyer had adjusted the price of the imported goods in guise of enhanced royalty or if the Department finds that the buyer had misled the Department by such pricing adjustments then the adjudicating authority would be justified in adding the royalty/licence fees payment to the price of the imported goods. No such condition of sale is noticed by the Original Authority from the Agreement in the impugned case and hence the judgments are distinguished. Further in the case of Kruger Ventilation Indus. (North India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commr. of Customs (Import), New Delhi [2022 (382) E.L.T. 541 (Tri. - Del.)], a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal held that, though the royalty is paid is as percentage of the net turnover of goods manufactured, which includes the imported material, it is not sufficient to add royalty to the assessable value. This decision was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2023) 9 Centax 75 (S.C.) = 2023 (386) ELT 13 (SC).
17. We find that as per the order of the Ld. Original Authority the transaction value declared by the importer has been accepted under rule 3(3)(a) of CVR 2007. There is nothing to show the appellant had adjusted the price of the imported goods in guise of enhanced royalty. Royalty is not paid to Ajinomoto Thailand from whom the appellant procures its goods. Revenue has not been able to establish the payment of royalty is a 'condition of sale' of the imported goods nor has any flow back or direct / indirect payment from Ajinomoto India to Japan or Thailand been established. In such circumstances postponing the collection of duty on the imported goods, on an uncertain quantity, to the time of domestic sale after being repacked under a trademark, appears far too remote to retain the character of a Customs impost. 16
C/41402/2014 We feel that the question Revenue should have addressed / investigated is whether the import would have taken place from Ajinomoto Thailand if the appellant declined to pay royalty to Ajinomoto Japan or whether it would only lead to a denial of repacking of goods using the trademark. However, as it stands Revenue has failed to establish its allegations and hence the impugned order merits to be set aside.
18. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant is eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Order pronounced in open court on 21.08.2024)
(M. AJIT KUMAR) (P. DINESHA)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex