Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv vs C.C.E. Delhi on 1 October, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Date of Hearing: 07.05.13 Date of Pronouncement: 01.10.13 For approval and signature: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 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 should 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 Departmental authorities? 1. Appeal Nos. E/3700, 3701 & 3702/2004 M/s. British Scaffolding India Pvt. Ltd. Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Delhi Respondent
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 14-18/2004, dt.31.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Adjudication)
2. Appeal Nos. E/3731, 3732 & 3733/2004 M/s. Euro Scaff India Ltd.
Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Delhi Respondent
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.21-33/2004, dt. 31.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Adjudication, New Delhi)
3. Appeal Nos. E/3740, 3741 & 3742/2004 M/s. Lineman Halflo India Ltd.
Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Delhi Respondent
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.34-38/2004 dt. 31.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Adjudication, New Delhi)
4. Appeal Nos. E/3743, 3744 & 3745/2004 M/s. NEC Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd.
Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Delhi Respondent
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.39-43/2004,dt. 31.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Adjudication, New Delhi)
5. Appeal Nos. E/3756, 3757 & 3758/2004 M/s. SGB Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Delhi Respondent
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.19-23/2004, dt.31.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Adjudication, New Delhi)
6. Appeal Nos. E/3766, 3767 & 3768/2004 M/s. Framic Scaffolding (I) Ltd.
Sh.Neerav Hans & Sh.H.R.Shiv Appellant Vs. C.C.E. Delhi Respondent
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.24-28/2004,dt. 31.03.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Adjudication, New Delhi) Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Appearance : Sh. L.P.Asthana, Advocate - for the appellant, Sh. Nagesh Pathak, DR - for the Respondent FINAL ORDER NOS: 57780-57797 /2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:-
The Facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under:-
1.1 M/s. British Scaffolding (India) Ltd. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as BSL) is a public limited company with eight Directors, two of which are Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. H.R.Shiv. They have the manufacturing unit in Bhiwadi and manufacture scaffolding and Shuttering systems. M/s. Euro Scaff India Ltd., Mohali (Punjab) (hereinafter referred to as ESIL), also a public limited company with eight Directors, two of which are Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. H.R.Shiv, manufacture forged couplers and pressed couplers. M/s.Lineman Halflo India Ltd., Bhiwadi (hereinafter referred to as LHIL) also a public limited company with nine Directors, two of which are Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. H.R.Shiv, manufacture tubes and angle based equipments. M/s.NEC Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as NIPL), a private limited company with five Directors, two of which are Sh.Neerav Hans and Sh.H.R.Shiv, manufacture pressed couplers and assembled forged couplers besides manufactures of sheet metal components. M/s. SGB Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kundli (Haryana)(hereinafter referred to as SGBL), a private limited company with Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. H.R.Shiv as Directors, manufacture tubular structures. M/s. Framik Scaffolding (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as FSIL), Noida, U.P. also a private limited company with Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. H.R.Shiv, Directors manufacture tubular structures and floor form panel. There is no dispute that though Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. H.R.Shiv are Directors in each of these companies. All of them have separate factories located at separate places and each of them was separately availing SSI exemption during the period from April98 to March2002. FSIL had closed down in 1999. The Department after conducting enquiries with regard to eligibility of each of these companies for SSI exemption, was of the view that all these units were actually owned by M/s. BSL, New Delhi, a company controlled by Sh. H.R.Shiv and his close family members, which exercised full control over all the activities of ESIL, LHIL, NIPL SGBL and FSIL right from procurement of raw-material and manufacturing to the clearances and sale of the finished goods. In this regard the Department relied upon the facts that:-
(a) in each of these six companies Sh. H.R.Shiv, his son Sh. Neerav Hans and other family members along with group companies closely held by Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members, have substantial share holding, so as to exercise full financial and management control;
(b) while more than 75% of the clearances of ESIL, NIPL, FSIL, SGBL are to BSL; 100% of the clearance of LHIL are to BSL and it is BSL which sells the goods to independent buyers at much higher prices, which shows mutuality of interest between BSL on one hand and ESIL,NIPL, SGBL, LHIL and FSIL on the other hand;
(c) there are a number of instances where the staff of one company is working for the other, and payment for raw material purchased by one company was made by another group company; and
(d) it is BSL, based at New Delhi, which controls the accounts and finance and raw material procurement for all other group companies.
1.2 It has, therefore, been alleged that all these units are owned by one person i.e. M/s. BSL, which, in turn, is fully owned and controlled by Sh. H.R.Shiv, his sons and other close family members and hence for the purpose of determining their eligibility for SSI exemption for a particular year, their clearances during the preceding Financial Year, must be clubbed and on this basis none of these units would be eligible for SSI exemption. On this basis by six separate orders, the details of which are given below, duty demands, have been confirmed against BSL, ESIL, NIPL, SGBL, LHIL and ESIL along with interest and besides imposition of penalty of each of them under section 11AC, penalties have been on Sh. H.R.Shiv andSh. Neerav Hans under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001.
S.No. Order-in-Original No. Duty demand confirm and penalties imposed
1. 14-18/2004 dt.31.03.04 Duty demand of Rs. 18,51,315/- confirmed against BSL along with interest and while penalty of equal amount was imposed on BSL u/s 11AC of Central Excise Rules, 1944, penalty of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- have been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule 2001/ 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Sh. H.R.Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans respectively.
2. 19-23/2004 dt.31.03.2004 Duty demand of Rs. 20,27,500/- confirmed against SGBL along with interest and penalty of equal amount had been imposed on them u/s 11AC ibid. Penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- and 1,50,000/- was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise 2001/ 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944 on Sh. H.R.Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans respectively.
3. 24-28/2004 dt.31.03.2004 Duty demand of Rs.5,76,642/-/- confirmed against FSIL along with interest and penalty of equal amount imposed u/s 11AC ibid. Penalty of Rs.60,000/- and 44,000/- has been imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/ 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944 on Sh. H.R.Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans respectively.
4. 34-38/2004 dt.31.03.2004 Duty demand of Rs.15,78,781/- confirmed against LHIL along with interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed on them u/s 11AC ibid. Penalties of Rs.1,50,000/- and 1,25,000/- have been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/ 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944 on Sh.H.R.Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans respectively.
5. 39-43/2004 dt.31.03.2004 Duty demand of Rs.20,20,000/- confirmed against NIPL along with interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed on them u/s 11AC. Penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- and 1,50,000/- has been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/ 209A of Central Excise Rules 1944 on Sh.H.R.Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans respectively.
The duty demands against various companies have been confirmed by invoking extended period under proviso to Section of Central Excise Act, 1944 and holding that none of these companies were eligible for SSI exemption. Against these six orders of the Commissioner, these 18 appeals has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Sh.L.P.Asthana representing all the appellants made the following submissions:-
(i) Confirmation of the duty demand against each of the six appellant company is based on denial of the SSI exemption on the ground that for each financial year during the period from April98 to March02, aggregate value of their clearances for home consumption during the respective preceding financial year exceeded the threshold limit of eligibility for SSI exemption and for this purpose all the six appellant companies have been treated as owned by one person. The clubbing of the clearances of the six appellant companies for the purpose of determining their eligibility for SSI exemption is contrary to the provisions of the Boards Circular No. 6/92 dt. 29.05.92 according to which limited companies, whether public or private, have distinct and separate identity from the share holders and hence each company is a manufacturer by itself and will be separately entitled to SSI exemption limit. The impugned order is contrary to this circular of the Board which is binding on the Department.
(ii) The findings of the Commissioner regarding lifting of the corporate veil are not supported by any evidence. Just because two Directors Sh. H.R.Shiv and his son Sh. Neerav Hans are common in each of these six companies and Sh. H.R.Shiv and Sh.Neerav Hans along with their family members have some share holding in each of these companies, it can not be concluded that they are fully controlling each of these six companies. Out of these six companies, three companies - BSL, ESIL and LHIL are public limited companies and the other three are private limited companies. No evidence on record has been produced to show that Sh. H.R.Hans and his son Sh. Neerav Hans had exercised through BSL, pervasive financial and management control over other five companies- ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL and FSIL from raw-material purchase and manufacturing to marketing of the final products.
(iii) The appellant companies had been started at different point of time. They manufactured different products and have separate Central Excise Registration and sales tax registration. There is separate income tax assessment as each company prepares separate balance sheet declaring its assets and liabilities and prepares separate profit and loss account. There is no administrative and financial control exercised by Sh.H.R. Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans, through BSL, as has been alleged in the Show Cause Notice. It is not correct to say that inflow and outflow of funds was controlled by BSL, Delhi, as alleged by the Department.
(iv) Although one persons of BSL, Delhi was authorised signatory for bank accounts of various companies, the accounts were quite separate and mostly in different banks and just on this ground, it can not be said that it is the BSL which was fully controlling the said companies.
(v) While factories of BSL and LHIL are located at Bhiwadi on separate plots, SGBL is located at Kundli (Haryana), NIPL is located at Gurgaon(Haryana), ESIL is located at Mohali(Punjab) and FSIL is located at Noida(U.P.). Each company has its own assets and liabilities and separate profit & loss account. Separate balance sheet is prepared by each company and each company is treated as separate assessee by the Income Tax Authorities. Therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to say that all these companies are owned by one person. just because some companies of the group ESIL, NIPL, FSIL & SGBL were selling more than 75% of their products to BSL, it can not be concluded that all these companies were owned by one person.
(vi) Different companies were procuring raw-material separately from separate suppliers. Though there were purchase and sale transactions between some companies, those transactions were done on principal to principal basis and at competitive market prices. No doubt, as is common in trade, certain payments were delayed, but these were adjusted from time to time and for that reason, some kind of running balances were also maintained, but none of these companies gave up their claims for the amounts due from other companies or that funds were diverted from one company to another without accounting or without running debits or credits.
(vii) It is not a case of the Department that any of the companies -BSL, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL or FSIL is fictitious or non-existent. The Commissioner, in fact, has passed separate orders demanding duty from each company separately and imposing separate penalty. Honble Supreme Court in case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors Vs. CCE, reported in 1997(92)ELT-45(SC), in a similar situation has observed that by confirming the duty demand upon all the seven units, the collector appears to have treated them all as assessee and implicitly recognized their independent existence. Tribunal in case of Universal Industries Vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2000(115) ELT-704 (T),relying upon the Apex Courts judgment in case of Gajanan Fabrics Distributors (Supra), has held that clubbing of clearances of the units was not justified when duty demand has been confirmed separately against each unit.
(viii) Tribunal in case of Alpha Toyo Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1994(71) ELT-(689) has held that common managerial control, a few common Directors, advancing of interest free loans by main unit to other units is not sufficient to make other unit dummy, when they are having independent existence and independent transactions, without any profit sharing, management control or money flow back to the main unit and in such a situation, the clearances can not be clubbed for the purpose of SSI exemption notification. Tribunal in case of CCE Bangalore Vs. Vaspar Concepts (p) Ltd. reported in 2006(196)ELT-95 has held that when all the four units were functioning independently under separate registration and were filing separate returns under various Acts and when there is no flow back of funds which is an essential ingredient for clubbing clearances of the units, merely because the assessee were giving business to other and got their products manufactured from each other, is no ground to hold that other units were dummy units.
(ix) Apex Court in case of Supreme Washers (p) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune reported in 2002 (53) RLT-753(SC) has held that the clearances of two or more units can be clubbed for the purpose of SSI exemption when they are under common management, there is common procurement of raw-material, there is common stock accounting and planning, there is inter-dependence of manufacturing operations, common stock of raw-material and finished goods, common machinery, common marketing arrangement, free flow of finance among the units and cumulative indication of interdependent and inter relationship. This criteria prescribed for clubbing in this judgment of Apex Court is not at all satisfied in the present case. Moreover in this case the Apex Court taking note of the Boards Circular No. 6/92, dt. 29.05.92, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for examine the applicability of this circular and subsequently the Tribunal in de-novo proceedings, relying upon the Boards Circular dt. 29.05.92 held that there is no case for clubbing.
4. Sh. Nagesh Pathak, learned DR, defending the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in it, emphasized on the following points:-
(i) From the scrutiny of resumed documents and statements of various employees of the appellant companies, it is clear that sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members along with other group companies were holding maximum number of shares in each of the six companies i.e. BSL, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL and as such these different manufacturing units forming BSL group had no independent identity in the matters relating to the finance, procurement of raw material, business plan, production and sales and all these affairs were being controlled by BSL, Delhi as a whole which, in turn, was being controlled by Sh. H.R.Shiv, his close family members and a closely held group company. The investigation also revealed that Sh. H.R.Shiv and his sons Sh. Neerav Hans and Siddharth Hans were known in the trade as owners of BSL group of companies. Records/documents pertaining to financial transactions of all group companies were being maintained at Manisha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi, the Head Office of M/s. BSL, Delhi and their recovery from the said premises during the search clearly indicated that the documents/records of group companies were being maintained under the directions of H.R.Shiv, Managing Director of BSL.
(ii) All BSL group companies namely BSL, LHIL, SGBL, NIPL, FSIL & ESIL had mutuality of interest in each others business. BSL, Delhi purchased more than 75% of the products of SGBL, FSIL, ESIL & NIPL and was selling the same in the market at much higher price. LHIL was selling its entire production to BSL which was being sold by BSL at much higher price. This shows that the transactions between these companies were not on principal to principal basis.
(iii) The norms of payment among the units were such that the same reflected inter-dependence of these units. The frequent transfer of funds among the units was done to protect the business of each other. The payments were made in lump sum as per need/requirement of individual company and no one to co-relation in their ledger of debit and credit entries could be found.
(iv) Sh. H.R.Shiv and his son Sh. Neerav Hans controlled all the affairs of BSL, SGBL, NIPL, LHIL, ESIL and FSIL such as production, sales, procurement of orders, financial transactions, funding of different manufacturing units, administration and management etc. They had shown different members of their family as directors in these manufacturing units.
(v) Sh. H.R.Shiv and his son Sh. Neerav Hans were controlling these six units by direct share holding in each of these companies and also by share holding in the name of close family members and in the name of other companies of the group, in which they had large share holding.
(vi) Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, Assistant Manager of SGBL, in his statement dt. 15.05.01 (Para 45 of the impugned order No. 14-18/04 dt. 31.03.04) has stated that he was looking after the work relating to the Central Excise, Sales Tax, Receipts of raw-material and dispatch of finished goods in respect of SGBL, that he reported directly to Sh.K.C.Gupta, General Manager, (Finance & Accounts),BSL, Delhi sitting at its Head Office at Manisha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi, that SGBL is one of the group companies of BSL, Delhi, where Managing Directors is Sh. H.R.Shiv and Sh. Neerav Hans is the Director, that Sh. Ashok Mandal is the Executive Director of SGBL that various raw-
materials for SGBL for use in the manufacture of their finished goods were being received directly from their vendors as per the specifications given and orders placed by BSL, Delhi, that quality control Engineer of BSL, Delhi was also doing the quality control work of inspection of raw-material and quality inspection of the finished products of SGBL, that the cheque book of SGBL was lying with BSL, Delhi, and payments to their raw material supplier were being made by BSL Delhi, that the production plan in respect of SGBL was being given by BSL, Delhi, that the account officers of the other group companies LHIL, FSIL, ESIL & NIPL were also reporting to Sh. K.C.Gupta, General Manager(Finance and Accounts) of BSL, Delhi, and that transfer of the funds between companies was being handling by K.C.Gupta. This statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik of SGBL clearly indicates that the main company of the group is BSL and all other companies were being controlled by BSL.
(vii) Sh. Deepak Kakkar, Ex- DGM of SGBL, who had been working with this company from Jan.95 to 13th April 2001, in his statement dt. 27.07.01 (Para 46.1 of the impugned order No. 18/04 dt. 31.03.04), stated that BSL, SGBL, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL & FSIL were actually owned by Sh. H.R.Shiv, that the major share holding in each of the group company is of Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members or by group companies, and that when he was working with SGBL, he was also the authorised signatory for BSL, LHIL, SGBL & FSIL.
(viii) There are numerous instances where a person employed in one group company was doing the work of other group company also.
(ix) from the premises of ESIL, a communication from ESIL to BSL Delhi was recovered, which was with regard to projected requirement of funds by ESIL for Feb.2000 under various accounts heads like:- Staff salary, Telephone bills, production, shipment, Contractors etc. (Para 53 & 54.1 of the impugned order No. 14-18/04 dt. 31.03.04). The total fund requirement shown in the document was Rs.45,57,924/- which was to be provided by BSL, Delhi. There were similar fund requisitions from ESIL to BSL, Delhi for other months also. This indicates that BSL were providing the funds to group companies for their day to day operations. The office memo from Sh. Neerav Hans to Sh.J.R.Choudhary of ESIL, Mohali states that any decision having financial implication on the units should be approved in writing prior to implementation from Sh. Neerav Hans. Sh. J.K.Choudhary of ESIL in his statement dt. 15.05.01, has stated that for funds, they were dependent on BSL, Delhi that BSL, Delhi was auditing the records of ESIL and was also planning their production and dispatch.
(x) Sh. S.K .Gupta, Manager (Accounts) of BSL, Delhi, in his statement dt. 07.08.02 (Para 65.1 of the impugned order No. 14-18/04, dt. 31.03.04) stated that while he was reporting to Sh.K.C.Guta, G.M., (Finance and Accounts), BSL, Delhi., that besides being authorised signatory to operate the bank account of BSL, Delhi, was also authorised to operate the accounts of NIPL, SGBL, FSIL, ESIL and LHIL and that this was so, as the directors of those companies knew him and had authorised him to operate accounts of those units. Similarly Sh. S.Solanki, Manager Accounts of BSL, Delhi in his statement dt.03.08.02 stated that though his responsibility was to look after the work relating to sales tax of BSL, Delhi he was also looking after the sales tax matters of LHIL, NIPL, & FSIL etc. and in fact rubber stamps of other group companies were also recovered from the drawer of his table.
(xi) The above evidence on record shows that though the six companies BSL, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL are shown to be separate and independent limited companies and three of such companies are public unit and the rest are private limited company, on lifting the corporate veil of these entities, it is seen that it is Sh. H.R.Shiv and his son Sh. Neerav Hans who through the main group company M/s. BSL Delhi, exercised pervasive financial and managerial control over all these companies right from procurement of raw-material, planning of production, finance and sale of the finished goods and, therefore, it is BSL Delhi which have to be treated as actual owner of the other five group companies and accordingly for the purpose of the determining the eligibility of each of these companies for SSI exemption for each financial year, their clearances during the proceeding financial year must be clubbed and if this is done, none of them would be eligible for SSI Exemption.
(xii) Though in terms of the Boards Circular No. 06/92 dt. 29.05.92 limited companies, whether public or private, are separate entities and, hence, each limited company being a manufacturer by itself is entitled for SSI exemption separately, Honble Supreme Court in case of Supreme Washers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003(151)ELT-14(SC), while taking note of this Circular of the Board, has held that when the management of three public limited companies was under one person, there was common procurement of raw-material, common stock accounting, common planning of production, common use of machinery and common marketing arrangement with free flow finance between them, the three entities have to be treated as being owned by one person and the value of their clearances would be required to be clubbed for the purpose of SSI Exemption Notification No. 175/06-CE. Thus in term of the above judgment of the Apex Court for the purpose on clubbing the clearances of two or more units for the purpose of determining their liability for SSI Exemption, what has to be seen is as to whether after lifting the corporate veil, the entities are run by one person and it is only one person who has pervasive managerial and financial control over them. This criteria for clubbing the clearances is satisfied in this case. In view of the above it was pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that:-
(a) the entities which are alleged by the Department to be owned by one person and on this basis whose clearances are sought to be clubbed for the purpose of SSI Exemption Notification, are Pubic limited companies or private limited companies, but in each of these companies Sh.H.R.Shiv and his son S.Neerav Hans are common directors;
(b) in each of these companies Sh. H.R.Shiv his son Sh. Neerav Hans and other family members have share holder in addition to share holding by other group companies and other persons;
(c) while BSL is engaged in trading also, in addition to manufacturing, other group companies ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL are engaged only in manufacturing activities;
(d) while LHIL during period of dispute sold entire production to BSL, Delhi, other group companies ESIL, NIP, FSIL & SGBL sold more than 75% of their production to BSL, which is in turn, sold those goods at much higher prices to independent buyers; and
(e) all these units BSL, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL during period of dispute i.e. during April98 to March02 period, were separately availing SSI Exemption Notification.
5.1 The point of dispute is that while according to the Department, in each of these companies Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members along with other group companies had more than 50% share holding and thus Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members through one of the group company BSL, Delhi exercised pervasive financial and management control over the remaining five units, right from the procurement of raw-material, planning of production, manufacture of finished goods, marketing etc. and all these companies were being run as different units of the same manufacturer, the Appellants on the other hand plead that each of these units is an independent entity and there is no justification for treating them as the units owned by one person and clubbing their clearances for the purpose of SSI Exemption.
7. In these appeals, the SSI Exemption is sought to be denied only on the basis of clubbing of the clearances of the six companies for determining the eligibility of each of them for SSI Exemption. Since one of the main plea of the appellants is that the Commissioner by passing the separate adjudication orders demanding different amounts of duty from six appellant companies BSL, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL, has accepted their independent entity and therefore ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL can not be treated as owned by SBL, in our view, it would be necessary to deal with this plea first for which it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of the SSI Exemption Notification.
8.
7. SSI Exemption is subject to conditions specified in it. One condition for this exemption notification is that where a manufacturer clears specified goods from one or more factories, the Exemption in his case shall apply for the total value of clearances mentioned against each of the serial numbers in the said table and not separately for each factory. Another condition of the Notification is that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories during the proceeding financial year does not exceed a particular threshold limit, as mentions in the Notification. Thus when a manufacturer has four factories located at different locations, and the SSI Exemption Notification prescribes nil rate of duty for first clearances of specified goods worth Rs. 50 lakhs in a financial year, each of these factories would not be separately eligible for full duty exemption in respect of its first clearances worth Rs. 50 lakhs in a financial year and for the purpose of this exemption, it is aggregate value of clearance of all the factories put together which would be considered. Similarly, eligibility for SSI Exemption during a particular financial year, shall be determined on the basis of aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption during the proceeding financial year made from all the factories of the manufacturer and if the aggregate value exceeds the threshold limit, none of the units would be eligible for SSI Exemption even if the value of clearances for home consumption of all excisable goods made by each individual unit during the proceeding financial is well within the threshold limit for SSI exemption. It may happen that a manufacture may have several factories located in different states falling under the jurisdiction of different Commissioners of Central Excise. If each of these factories was availing the SSI Exemption separately and if it is found that for a particular financial year, the aggregate value of their clearances of all excisable goods during the preceding financial year had exceeded the threshold limit for SSI Exemption, none of these units would be eligible for SSI Exemption during that year. In such a situation, duty can be demanded by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities separately from each unit and the question of identifying the main unit and dummy units and demanding duty only from main unit does not arise, as in the scheme of collection of Central Excise duty, as laid down in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made there under, the collection of duty is manufacturing unit wise and if a manufacturer has two or more factories located at separate locations, each unit is required to obtain separate Central Excise registration and is assessed to duty separately by the jurisdictional central excise officers. If there is short payment of duty by different units of a manufacturer on account of wrong availment of SSI Exemption, separate duty demands would have to be confirmed by the respective central excise officers having jurisdictional over the unit. If, however, the CBEC appoints a common adjudicating authority, that common adjudicating authority can pass an adjudication order demanding duty from the units located in different commissionerates. The question of identifying the main unit and the dummy unit and demanding duty only from the main unit arises only in that situation when on investigation, only one unit is found to be actually functioning and other units are found to be just non functional fake units established just to show bogus production and clearances in their name.
7.1 However in most of the cases, the fact of common ownership of different units by a person is not so obvious and may be carefully camouflaged. For example if there is a manufacturing unit of a proprietorship concern of a person X, there is a second manufacturing unit owned by a partnership concern A with X and his wife Y as partners, there is a third manufacturing unit owned by a private limited company B with shareholding by X, his son Z1, and the partnership concern A and there is a fourth manufacturing unit owned by another private limited company C with shareholding by A, B and another son Z2 of X and if these four units owned by X, A, B and C are each availing of SSI Exemption, a question arises as to whether they are to be treated as separate entities or units owned by the same person, for the purpose of SSI Exemption.
7.1.1 While a company is a legal person entirely distinct from its shareholders, in terms of Apex Courts Judgment in case of Income Tax Commissioner, Madras Vs. Meenakshi Mills, Madurai, reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 819, in certain exceptional cases, the court is entitled to lift the veil of corporate entity and to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade and that the court has powers to disregard the corporate entity if it is used for tax evasion or to circumvent the tax obligation. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in cases of :-
(a) Calcutta Chromotype Vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in (1998) 3, SCC-681;
(b) Subra Mikharjee & another Vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. reported in (2000) 3 SCC- 312; and
(c) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipp Construction Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC-622.
The Apex Court in case of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. reported in 1986 (157) ITR-77(SC) relying upon its earlier judgment in case of Medowell & Co. Ltd. Vs. CTO, reported in 1985 154 ITR148, 161(SC) has held that even if companies are distinct legal entities having separate existence, this is not the end of the matter and it is the duty of the Court in every case, where ingenuity is expended, to get behind the smokescreen and discover the true state of affairs. Thus, the principle of lifting the corporate veil for discovering the true state of affairs behind the veil of the corporate entity is a well settled legal principle. It is this principle which has to applied for determining as to whether two or more manufacturing units owned by separate partnership firms, private limited companies and/or public limited companies are to be treated as the units of the same manufacture. On this point, the Apex Court in case of CCE Delhi Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2004(171) ELT-155(SC) has held that when on lifting the corporate veil it is found that only one person/company has extraordinary interest and pervasive control over the financial matters and management of other companies, irrespective of the latter having separate sales tax, income tax and central excise registration, their clearances have to be clubbed for determining their eligibility for the SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE. In this regard, para 87 of the judgment is reproduced below:-
Whether there is inter-dependence and whether another unit is, in fact, a dummy has to be adjudicated on the facts of each case. There cannot be any generalization or rule of universal application. Two basic features which prima facie show interdependence are pervasive financial control and management control. In the present case facts clearly show financial control. Undisputedly, the share capital of each of the three companies was Rs. 200/-. Though it was claimed that financial assistance was availed from the financial companies, it is on record that the unsecured loans advanced by MACL to the three companies were substantially heavy amounts as on 1-4-1998. NGCPL received an amount of Rs. 1.55 crores. About 14 lakhs appeared to have been paid after the issue of show cause notice. Loans advanced to NGCPL was about Rs. 52 lakhs while to SCGCPL it was about Rs. 65 lakhs. The finding of the Commissioner that the financial assistance from the financial institutions were availed with the aid and assistance of MACL has not been seriously disputed. Apart from that, the cylinders were brought on lease by MACL from another concern and were sub-leased to the three companies. The cylinders bore the name of MACL. If the three companies had separate standing as contended it could not be explained why they could not get the cylinders directly from the lessors on lease basis and the need for introducing MACL as the lessee and then the three companies becoming sub-lessees. As noted by the Commissioner, entire receipts were paid as lease amount to MACL. Here again, the under-valuation aspect assumes importance. While the supply by MACL to three companies was Rs. 0.50 per unit, the sale price by the three companies was Rs. 5 per unit. It is on record that accounts were kept by common staff and marketing was done under the supervision of a person who belongs to the same group of concerns. The amounts have been collected by an employee of MACL. The so-called Directors of the companies were undisputedly employees of MACL. Almost the entire financial resources were made by MACL. The financial position clearly shows that MACL had more than ordinary interest in the financial arrangements for companies. The statements of the employees/ Directors show that the whole show was controlled, both on financial and management aspects by MACL. If these are not sufficient to show inter-dependence probably nothing better would show the same. The factors which have weighed with CEGAT like registration of three companies under the sales tax and income tax authorities have to be considered in the background of factual position noted above. When the corporate veil is lifted what comes into focus is only the shadow and not any substance about the existence of the three companies independently. The Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992 has no relevance because it related to Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and did not relate to Notification No. 1/93. The extended period of limitation was clearly applicable on the facts of the case, as suppression of material features and factors has been clearly established. If in reality the three companies are front companies then the price per unit to be assessed in the hands of MACL is Rs. 5 and not Rs. 0.50 as disclosed. The question whether there was manufacture or not was not in issue before the Commissioner. The plea that there was no manufacture has also to be rejected in view of the fact that exemption was claimed by the three companies as manufacturers to avail the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 1/93.
Same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in its judgment in case of Supreme Washers Pvt. Ltd.(Supra).
7.1.2 The Boards Circular No. 6/92 dt. 29.05.92 clarifying that limited companies, whether public limited or private limited are separate entities and each such limited company is a manufacturer by itself and would be entitled for SSI Exemption separately, has not considered the principle of lifting of corporate veil in the cases where different corporate entities appear to be just colorable devices for tax evasion, and hence this circular is not in accordance with the provisions of law. In accordance with Apex Courts Judgment in case of CCE Vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, reported in 2008(231)ELT-22(SC) a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions, has no existence in law. Though in case of Supreme Washers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Apex Court taking note of the Boards Circular No.6/92 dt.29.05.92, had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for examining the applicability of this circular, since this circular being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Income Tax Commission, Madras Vs. Meenakshi Mills, Madurai (Supra), M/s. Calcutta Chromotype Vs. CCE (Supra), Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skippe Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (Supra), Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. (Supra) and CCE Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (Supra), has no existence in law, the Appellants plea for decision of this matter on the basis of Boards Circular No. 6/92-CE is not acceptable.
7.1.3 Thus, if there is evidence on record to prove that a particular person, whether natural or juristic, has comprehensive financial and management control over several entities and is the actual beneficiary of their activities, the clearances of the factories owned by these entities are to be clubbed for the purpose of determining their eligibility for SSI Exemption by treating them as the units of only one manufacturer, even if those units are owned by different public limited companies, private limited companies or partnership firms. If on clubbing their clearances during the preceding financial year, the aggregate value of the clearances is found to be exceeding the threshold limit for SSI Exemption, the SSI Exemption would have to be denied to each of them and if each of them is a functioning unit and not a non-functional dummy unit, the duty can be demanded separately from each unit.
7.1.4 However, if there is only one unit which is functioning unit and other units are just dummy units not actually engaged in manufacturing activities, duty would have to be demanded only from the existing unit by treating the other units as dummy units, and clubbing the clearances made in the name of those dummy units with the clearances of the main unit and for this purpose, there is no need to invoke the provision regarding clubbing in the SSI Exemption Notification.
8. In this case Sh. H.R.Shiv and his wife Hutokshi Hans have four children two sons Sh. Neerav Hans and Sh. Siddharth Hans and two daughters Mrs. Renu Hans and Mrs. Shilpa Hans. Sh. D.R.Shiv is the brother of Sh. H.R.Shiv. Besides these six companies with which we are concerned in these appeals, there is another private limited company named M/s. NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in which about 79.54% shareholding is of Sh. H.R.Shiv, Sh. Siddharth Hans, Sh. Neerav Hans, Mrs. Hutokshi Hans and Mrs. Renu Hans. Thus M/s. NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. is a company controlled by the Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members. Coming to the individual shareholding, our findings in respect of each of these six companies with which we are concerned in these appeals, are as under:-
(i) In BSL Delhi out of 2,20,800 shares while Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family have 60,000 shares, more than 50% shareholding is of NEC Engineers P.Ltd. which is a company controlled by Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members. Thus H.R.Shiv and his family together with NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. have about 80% shareholding in BSL, Delhi.
(ii) In NIPL out of 80,000 shares, Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members holds 74% shares. Thus in this company also bulk of the shareholding is of Sh.H.R.Shiv and his close family members.
(iii) In ESIL out of total shares of 3,61,600 shares, while H.R.Shiv and his family members hold 1,90,500 shares, BSL Delhi, a closely held company of Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members, hold 1,70,400 shares and M/s. NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. another closely held company for Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members, holds 700 shares. Thus this company is also fully controlled by Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members and a group company with 100% shareholding.
(iv) In FSIL 100% of the shareholding is of Sh.Siddharth Hans (1,74,000 Shares), Sh. Neerav Hans (2,01,000 Shares), Sh. H.R.Shsiv (55,000 Shares) and BSL Delhi (1,50,000 Shares).
(v) As regards LHIL while their collaborator M/s. LHIL, UK hold 40% of the shares, Sh. H.R.Shiv along with M/s.NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. hold 35,500 shares.
Thus except for LHIL, in the other group companies Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members have bulk of the shares holding so as to exercise full control. However, LHIL sells 100% of its production to BSL and other group companies EHIL, NIPL, FSIL & SGBL sell more than 75% of their production to BSL except for a small quantum of sales to independent buyers BSL, Delhi, sell those goods to independent buyers at much higher prices.
9. While the above mentioned shareholding pattern of BSL,NIPL,LHIL, SGBL, ESIL and FSIL and also the fact that SGBL, NIPL, LHIL, ESIL & FSIL sell 75% to 100% of their production to BSL, in turn, who sell those goods to independent buyers at much higher prices, by themselves, would not be the evidence of pervasive managerial and financial control of the H.R.Shiv family held Company BSL, Delhi over other group companies SGBL, ESIL, NIPL, LHIL & FSIL, these facts have to be seen in the background of the following facts and when this is done so, a different picture emerges.
(i) Sh. S.K.Gupta, Manager (Accounts) of BSL, Delhi, in his statement dt. 07.08.02, has stated that in addition to being authorised signatory in respect of BSLs account in Canara Bank, Noida, he was also the authorised signatory to operate the bank accounts of NIPL, SGBL, FSIL, ESIL, LHIL and NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and that he can operate the bank accounts of other group companies also as the directors of those companies knew him and had made him the authorised signatory in this regard. Sh. Gupta also stated that while as per the ledger account of BSL in the books of NIPL for 1998 & 1999, NIPL had made total payment of Rs. 26,35,720/- to BSL, he is unable to explain as to why said payments were made by NIPL to BSL.
(ii) Sh. Solanki, Assistant Manager in the BSL in his statement dt. 13.08.02 stated that his job responsibility was to look after the sales tax matters such as filing of Returns, assessment etc. and that in addition to looking after the sales matters of BSL, he was also looking after the sales tax work of LHIL, NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and FSIL also.
(iii) on examining the bank statement of the account of FSIL in Canara Bank during the period 01.11.99 to 06.06.01, it was found that even after closure, of this unit in March99, huge transactions had taken place in their account in as much as during the said period, while Rs. 91,87,235/- was deposited, Rs.91,77,352/- was withdrawn. The details of the withdrawals indicated that while Rs. 10 lakh was withdrawn by self cheque on 22.09.2000, Rs.35 lack was paid to BSL, Delhi on 26.09.2000. Sh.K.C.Gupta, General Manager, Finance BSL Delhi when asked to explain the payment of Rs. 35 lakh from the account of FSIL to BSL on 26.09.2000, expressed the inability to explain the same.
(iv) There are a number of instances where the persons employed in one Group Company and drawing their salary from there, were actually working in the other group company. For example Sh. Chitranjan Singh & Sh. Kishore Kumar Gupta though, on pay rolls of BSL, Delhi, were doing the quality control work in the factory of SGBL. Similarly Sh. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Accountant, NIPL in his statement dt. 15.05.01,stated that there was no person in NIPL to look after the quality control work and that Sh. Munish Kumar, the qualitycontrol person of BSL,Delhi, used to visit the unit of NIPL from time to time and was looking after the entire quality control work of NIPL. There is also an instance where BSL, Delhi, remitted amount of Rs. 25 lakh by cheque No. 731868 dt. 01.03.2000 to NIPL which was used for payment of salary to the staff of NIPL(para 34 of the impugned order No. 14-16/04 dt. 31.03.2004)
(v) Sh. Deepak Kakkar in his statement dt.27.07.01 stated that though employed with SGBL and drawing his salary from that company, he was looking after the Central Excise matters of all the group companiesBSL,LHIL,ESIL, NIPL, FSIL and NEC Engineers Pvt. Ltd. He also stated that in all these group companies, Sh. H.R. Shiv and his son Neerav Hans are the directors and besides this, in some company his other son Sh.Siddharth Hans and also some of the employees of group companies namely Sh. Rajiv Dhir, Sh.Ashok Mandal,Sh. R.C.P.Choudhary, Sh. Upender Kaul, Sh. Hari Om and Sh. Arun Kumar Datta are also directors, that all these companies are owned by Sh. H.R.Shiv and that he was also the authorised signatory of SGBL, BSL, LHIL and FSIL. He also stated that from page 150-151 of File No. 23 seized from BSL, Delhi it appeared that to reduce the profit of one company, the expenses were being manipulated and that except BSL, Delhi, all other group companies were in loss.
(vi) Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, Assistant Accounts Manager of SGBL in his statement dt. 15.05.01, stated that he was looking after the work relating to accounts, Central Excise, Sales Tax, receipt of raw-material and dispatch of finished goods of SGBL, that he was reporting to Sh.K.C.Gupta, General Manager (Finance and Accounts) of BSL, Delhi who was sitting in the head office of BSL at Manisha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi, that various raw-materials used in the manufacture of finished goods by SGBL were being received directly from their vendors as per the specifications given by BSL, Delhi, that the cheque book of SGBL was also lying with BSL Delhi and the payment to raw-material suppliers was being made by BSL Delhi, that the production plan for several months for SGBL was being given by Sh. Chinaya or Sh. Ravish of BSL, Delhi, that the production activity was being carried out by SGBL on the basis of production-plan given by BSL, Delhi, that the production plan for domestic sales was being given by Sh.Ghanshyam and Sh. Vinod Kumar of BSL, Delhi, that BSL Delhi had deputed a Quality Control Engineer for inspecting the raw material received and the finished goods produced, that dispatches for export and domestic market were made at the directions of BSL, Delhi, that the companies LHIL, FSIL, ESIL, NIPL, SGBL and NEC Engineer Pvt. Ltd. etc. were group companies of BSL, Delhi and their accounts persons were reporting to Sh. K.C.Gupta, GM (Accounts) of BSL, who controlled the accounts matters of the entire group and that there was transfer of funds between the group companies which was being handled by Sh.K.C.Gupta General Manager (Finance and Accounts),BSL Delhi. This statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik (Assistant Accounts Manager) SGBL clearly shows that the accounts of all the group companies and the transfer of funds between the group companies were being controlled by Sh. K.C.Gupta, General Manager, (Accounts & Finance) BSL, Delhi and who was directly reporting to Sh. H.R.Shiv. The statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik also shows that not only the raw-materials for use of SGBL were being purchased by BSL, even production plan of SGBL was being decided by BSL, Delhi and the payments to the vendors were also being made by BSL, Delhi as cheque book of SGBL was lying with BSL, Delhi.
(vii) Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, Assistant Manager of SGBL in his further statement dt. 04.07.02, stated that payments for the goods sold by SGBL to BSL Delhi were not being received by consignment wise but were being made in lump sum, that whenever SGBL required funds for further payments to their suppliers, they contacted Sh. K.C.Gupta, Manager (Accounts) of BSL, Delhi to release funds to SGBL.
(viii) Statement dt.21.02.01of Sh. K.C.Gupta also indicated that the finances of all BSL and other companies were being controlled by him.
(ix) The evidence on record also indicates that the purchase of raw- material of all the group companies was being handled from BSL, Delhi and it is BSL which was preparing the production plan of the group companies. Since SGBL, LHIL, ESIL, NIPL & FSIL were selling 75% to 100% production to BSL, Delhi, it is clear that it is the BSL, Delhi who was marketing the goods manufactured by other group companies.
(x) During 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, no payments were made by SGBL to NIPL for the goods supplied by NIPL, as SGBL was running in losses. But still NIPL was supplying the goods continuously to SGBL without charging any interest on the outstanding. However, inspite of such critical position of funds in SGBL during 1999-2000, it still transferred Rs.44 lakhs to BSL, Delhi, for which there is no explanation.
(xi) Show Cause Notice dt.02.06.2000 issued by Joint Director of Income Tax, addressed to Principal officers of BSL, NIPL, LHIL, FSIL, ESIL and SGBL and sent to the address at 75-76, Manisha Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi, alleges inter unit transfer of funds, payments on behalf of one unit by another and non re-conciliation of accounts in order to manipulate to the financial records. This is confirmed by the fact that loan amounting to Rs. 22,10,048/- of FSIL was settled by BSL vide cheque No. 760459 dt. 30.09.2000.
(xii) Though Sh.H.R.Shiv and his family members have only about 33% shareholding in LHIL:-
(a) LHIL was selling its entire production to BSL, Delhi who in turn were selling these goods at such higher prices and while BSL was making profit, LHIL and other group companies were making losses;
(b) As per the statement of Sh. Yash Pal Jain, Deputy Manager (Accounts), BSL, he was also looking after the accounts of LHIL and as per the statement of Sh. S. Solanki, Assistant Manager (Accounts), BSL, he was also looking after the sales tax work of LHIL.
(xiii) Sh. J. R. Choudhary, Technical Officer, ESIL in statement dt. 15.05.01 stated that almost all goods manufactured by ESIL were being sold to BSL, that the products are developed and manufactured after approval from BSL, that production and dispatch planning is also assisted by BSL, that quality control of the goods manufactured is done by the persons deputed by BSL and that ESIL is not only dependent upon BSL for funds but their records are but also audited by BSL.
(xiv) The evidence on records shows that out of above mentioned six group companies, only BSL, Delhi was making profit and other group companies ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, and SGBL & FSIL, in spite of selling their 75% to 100% of their production of SGBL, were making losses. If ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL were really independent companies, they would not sell entire or bulk of their production at lower price to BSL, Delhi to enable the BSL, Delhi to make profit while they themselves were suffering losses. This arrangement control with the statement dt. 27.07.01 of Sh. Deepak Kakkar that expense of companies were being manipulated to show lower profit clearly shows the transfer of funds to Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family who were controlling BSL, which, in turn, was controlling the other five manufacturing units- ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL. This fact, looked on the background of the evidences discussed above already indicates that it is BSL, Delhi, which had pervasive financial and management control over ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL and FSIL. In fact, the Apex Courts judgment in case of Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (Supra) is squarely applicable to the factual matrix of this case.
10. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that it is BSL, Delhi controlled by Sh. H.R.Shiv and his family members, which had pervasive financial and management control over ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL and only to wrongly avail the SSI Exemption, the manufacturing activities had been split up into several companies. Therefore, ESIL, LHIL, NIPL, SGBL & FSIL have to be treated as the units owned by BSL, Delhi and for determining their eligibility for SSI Exemption, their clearances during the preceding financial year have to be clubbed and if this is done, none of them would be eligible for SSI Exemption. The duty demands have, therefore, been correctly confirmed and penalty under section 11AC has been correctly imposed on each of the six Appellant companies. Since Sh. H.R.Shiv, his son Sh. Neeraj Hans have dealt with the goods which they knew or had reason to believe, were liable for confiscation, penalty on then under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 02001, has been correctly imposed.
11. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The 18 appeals are dismissed.
(D.N. Panda ) Member(Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member Technical S.Kaur 2