Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Maharaja Roofing Products vs Principal Commissioner Of Gst& Central ... on 19 February, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No. 40339 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CMB-CEX-000-APP-308/2017 dated 09.11.2017 passed by
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), No. 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore - 641 018)
M/s. Maharaja Roofing Products ...Appellant
60 Feet Road, A3, Sulur Industrial Estate,
Kadampadi, Kangeyampalayam Post,
Sulur Taluk, Sulur,
Coimbatore - 641 402.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Coimbatore Commissionerate, No. 6/7, A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore - 641 018.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Bindusaran, Consultant For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, Authorised Representative CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. 40263 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 19.02.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO The present appeal is filed by M/s. Maharaja Roofing Products, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') against Order-in-Appeal No. CMB/CEX/000 /APP/308/17 dated 09.11.2017('Impugned Order' for short) passed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 2 (Appeals), Coimbatore, whereby Order-in-Original No. 09/2017 dated 30.03.2017 was upheld. 1.2 The Appellant is engaged in the activity of converting colour-coated / galvanised steel sheets in coil form into profiled roofing sheets by processes such as de-
coiling, straightening, roll-forming, profiling, crimping and cutting to size. The Appellant undertakes such activity both on its own account as well as on job-work basis for traders who supply raw material.
1.3 During the audit of the Appellant's accounts conducted in August 2012, it was noticed that in respect of job-work undertaken for three traders, the Appellant discharged Central Excise duty only on the job-work charges and not on the value inclusive of raw materials supplied by the traders. The Department alleged that the activity amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and that valuation ought to have been done in terms of Section 4 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
1.4 Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2016 was issued invoking the extended period under Section 11A(4) proposing recovery of duty of ₹35,19,901/- 3 for the period October 2011 to September 2012 along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC.
1.5 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed equivalent penalty holding that the activity amounted to manufacture and that suppression was established. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, leading to the present appeal before this Tribunal.
2. The Ld. Consultant Mr. K. Bindusaran appeared for the Appellant and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Sanjay Kakkar, appeared for the Revenue.
3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted as follows: -
i. The entire proceedings are fundamentally misconceived as the activity undertaken by the Appellant does not amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ii. It was submitted that roofing sheets remain roofing sheets both before and after the process, and that profiling or embossing does not bring into existence a new product with a distinct name, character or use. 4 iii. Reliance was placed on a long line of binding precedents including:
a. CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court) b. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India c. CCE v. Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) d. CCE v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) e. Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. v. CCE (Supreme Court) to contend that mere processing, cutting, shaping or improvement in quality does not constitute manufacture unless a new product with a distinct name, character and use emerges.
iv. It was further argued that the Department itself forced the Appellant to obtain Central Excise registration in 2010 despite the activity not amounting to manufacture, and the Appellant paid duty under protest to avoid coercive action.
v. On limitation, it was submitted that:
a. ER-1 returns were filed regularly;
b. audit objection was raised in August 2012; c. the Show Cause Notice issued in April 2016 is time-barred;
d. there is no allegation or evidence of fraud, suppression or intent to evade duty.
vi. Without prejudice, it was submitted that even if manufacture is assumed, the demand is revenue- neutral, valuation is incorrect, relied-upon documents were not supplied, and penalty is wholly unjustified. 5 4.1 The Learned Authorized Representative supported the impugned order and contended that the process of profiling and roll-forming converts plain sheets into profiled roofing sheets having enhanced strength and marketability, thereby amounting to manufacture. 4.2 Reliance was placed on decisions such as: -
a. Hansa Metallic Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 2001 (133) ELT 543 (P&H) b. Vardhman Industries Ltd. 2002 (147) ELT 560 (Tri.- Del.) c. Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. 2002 (149) ELT 200 (Tri.-Del.) d. Maharashtra Metal Industries 2004 (165) ELT 455 (Tri.- Mumbai) to argue that corrugation / profiling of sheets has been judicially recognised as manufacture. 4.3 It was further contended that the Appellant suppressed material facts by paying duty only on job-
charges and that the extended period was rightly invoked.
5. We have carefully heard the submissions advanced by both sides, examined the appeal records in detail, considered the statutory provisions, and the case Laws cited.
6
6. Upon such comprehensive consideration, the following issues arise for our determination in this appeal as to: -
i. Whether the activity undertaken by the Appellant amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
ii. If manufacture is held to have taken place, whether valuation under Section 4 read with Rule 10A is applicable?
iii. Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 11A (4) is invokable?
iv. Whether imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and interest is sustainable?
Whether the Activity Undertaken by the Appellant Amounts to Manufacture
7.1 We find that the concept of "manufacture" under Central Excise law is well settled. Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines manufacture to include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product, as well as any process specified in the Section Notes or Chapter Notes of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Judicially, it is consistently held that manufacture occurs when a process results in the emergence of a new and distinct product having a different name, character or use, 7 and which is recognized as such in commercial parlance. Whether a particular activity amounts to manufacture is a fact-specific determination. It must be decided on the cumulative effect of the processes undertaken and the commercial identity of the resultant product. 7.2 The Appellant has relied on CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. [2011 (266) ELT 160 (Bom.)], Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1991 (56) ELT 52 (Bom.)], and CCE v. Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (276) ELT 162 (SC)] to contend that mere processing, improvement in quality, or enhancement of marketability does not amount to manufacture. While the legal principles laid down in these decisions are unexceptionable, they were rendered in factual contexts where the processes were superficial or incidental and the original commodity retained its essential identity without the emergence of a new commercially distinct product as also held in CCE v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC).
7.3 In the present case, we find that the adjudicating authority, in paragraphs 7 to 7.3 of the Order- in-Original, has recorded detailed and cogent findings. It stands established that colour-coated steel sheets in coil form were supplied to the Appellant, received directly at its 8 factory, and subjected to a series of processes including decoiling, roll-forming/profiling, crimping and cutting, after which the goods were cleared as profiled roofing sheets on payment of agreed job charges. These facts are not in dispute. Manufacture is not confined to a single act but is the cumulative effect of a series of operations leading to the emergence of the final product.
7.4 The processes undertaken go well beyond mere cutting or superficial treatment. Decoiling removes coil memory; roll-forming and profiling introduce ribs or corrugations; crimping enhances rigidity and functional performance; and cutting produces finished sheets of specified dimensions. The end product that emerges is not merely flat steel sheet but profiled roofing sheets possessing enhanced rigidity, structural strength, load-bearing capacity and functional suitability for roofing applications viz attributes absent in the flat sheets in coil form. 7.5 We also find merit in the reliance placed on Chapter Note 1(k) to Chapter 72, which clarifies that flat- rolled products may include corrugated or otherwise worked sheets only so long as they do not attain the character of articles of other headings. In the present case, the flat-rolled steel sheets supplied in coil form attain the character of 9 roofing sheets classifiable under Chapter 73, specifically Heading 7308, after profiling and crimping. Colour-coated steel coils are traded as flat-rolled inputs under Chapter 72, whereas profiled roofing sheets are traded as finished construction articles under Chapter 73, clearly demonstrating a shift in tariff classification and commercial identity. 7.6 The Revenue has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hansa Metallics Ltd. v. Union of India [2001 (133) ELT 543 (P&H)], wherein it was held that corrugation of plain metallic and galvanised sheets amounts to manufacture, as such corrugation brings into existence a new commercially distinct product having different identity and use. The said judgment was carried in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed, as reported in 2003 (156) ELT A328 (SC), thereby affirming the ratio of the High Court. The said view has thereafter been consistently followed by the Tribunal in Vardhman Industries Ltd., Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. and Maharashtra Metal Industries.
7.7 The contention of the Appellant that profiling is merely for aesthetic improvement is untenable. Roll-forming and crimping impart structural strength, improve load- bearing capacity, facilitate water drainage and enhance 10 durability which are attributes critical for roofing materials. These changes are intrinsic and irreversible, resulting in a product engineered for specific roofing applications. 7.8 It is also settled that the test of manufacture does not require the input product to become unusable for its original purpose; what is required is acquisition of a distinct commercial identity. In the present case, profiled roofing sheets are marketed, priced and demanded as a separate class of goods in the construction industry. 7.9 The reliance of the Appellant on Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd [2012 (276) ELT 162 (SC)] is misplaced for reasons already noted, that decision dealt with blending of chemicals where the essential character and end-use remained unchanged. In contrast, the present case involves structural and functional transformation resulting in a new commercially distinct commodity. The change in tariff classification from Chapter 72 to Heading 7308 under Chapter 73, though not conclusive by itself, reinforces this conclusion when read with functional transformation and market recognition.
7.10 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the activity undertaken by the Appellant results in a 11 substantial and irreversible transformation of flat steel sheets into profiled roofing sheets possessing enhanced structural strength, functional utility and a distinct commercial identity. Applying the ratio of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hansa Metallics Ltd. v. Union of India [2001 (133) ELT 543 (P&H)], which was carried in appeal and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (156) ELT A328 (SC), and the consistent line of Tribunal decisions following the said ratio, and having distinguished the judgments relied upon by the Appellant on facts, we unhesitatingly hold that the impugned activity amounts to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Applicability of Valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 9.1 Having held that the activity undertaken by the Appellant amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the necessary legal consequence is that the Appellant is liable to discharge Central Excise duty on the manufactured goods. The next issue is the correct method of valuation. It is undisputed that the Appellant undertook manufacture on job-work basis using raw materials supplied by traders and cleared the finished profiled roofing sheets back to such suppliers for 12 further sale. In such circumstances, valuation cannot be confined to job charges but must be determined in accordance with the statutory scheme under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
9.2 Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 was introduced specifically to govern valuation in job-work situations. The Rule provides that where excisable goods are manufactured by a job-worker on behalf of another person, the assessable value shall be the transaction value at which such goods are sold by the principal from his premises, or the normal transaction value at which they are sold in the course of wholesale trade. The clear legislative intent of Rule 10A is to ensure that duty is levied on the intrinsic value of the manufactured goods as they enter the stream of commerce, and not merely on the processing or job charges, which would otherwise result in undervaluation. 9.3 The contention of the Appellant that Rule 10A applies only where raw materials are supplied by a "principal manufacturer" and not by traders is untenable. The Explanation to Rule 10A defines a job-worker as a person who manufactures goods on behalf of another, using inputs supplied by the principal manufacturer or by any other 13 person authorised by him. The language is deliberately broad and does not restrict applicability to cases where the supplier of inputs is a registered manufacturer. What is determinative is that manufacture is undertaken on behalf of another person who arranges inputs and undertakes sale of the finished goods.
9.4 This position is well supported by judicial precedent. In CCE v. Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. [2018 (361) ELT 642 (Tri.-Mumbai)], the Tribunal held that Rule 10A applies irrespective of whether the principal is a manufacturer or a trader, as valuation must reflect the economic reality of manufacture on behalf of another. Similarly, in CCE v. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 613 (Tri.-Chennai)], it was held that where goods are manufactured on job-work basis and sold by the supplier of inputs, valuation cannot be restricted to job charges and must be determined under Rule 10A. This position is also consistent with CCE v. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (331) ELT 204 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that valuation must reflect the intrinsic value of manufactured goods.
9.5 The principle that excise duty must attach to the full intrinsic value of goods manufactured on job-work basis 14 is firmly settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC)], wherein it was held that assessable value must include the value of raw materials supplied by the customer in addition to job charges. Rule 10A merely codifies this principle and provides a clear statutory mechanism for valuation. 9.6 We note that the Appellant's plea that valuation should be confined only to job charges is therefore contrary to both statutory provisions and settled law. Acceptance of such a plea would defeat the very object of Rule 10A and lead to systematic undervaluation of excisable goods manufactured on job-work basis. The Department has rightly adopted the value at which the goods were sold by the traders to independent buyers, which represents the true assessable value under Section 4 read with Rule 10A. 9.7 In view of the above discussion, we hold that once manufacture is established, valuation of the goods cleared by the Appellant on job-work basis is correctly governed by Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The valuation methodology adopted by the Department, based on the sale price of the goods by the suppliers in the open market, is legally sound and sustainable in principle. 15 9.8 We further note that the issues arising in the present appeal stand squarely covered by the recent decision of this Tribunal in Premier Roofing and Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & GST, Coimbatore, 2024 (8) TMI 1328 - CESTAT CHENNAI, decided by CESTAT, Chennai in 2024. In that case, on materially identical facts, the Tribunal examined the activity of conversion of colour- coated/galvanised steel sheets in coil form into profiled roofing sheets by processes such as decoiling, roll-forming, profiling, crimping and cutting, and held that such processes result in the emergence of a new commercially distinct product classifiable under Chapter 73, thereby amounting to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal further upheld valuation under Section 4 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, holding that where goods are manufactured on job-work basis and sold by traders in the open market, duty liability cannot be confined to job charges alone and must be discharged on the transaction value at which the goods are sold by such traders.
Whether the Extended Period of Limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is Invokable 10.1 We note that the proviso to Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers the Department to 16 invoke the extended period of limitation where duty has not been paid or has been short-paid by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. It is settled law that suppression need not necessarily be by way of positive misdeclaration; deliberate non-disclosure of material facts which are required to be disclosed for correct assessment of duty also constitutes suppression.
10.2 In the present case, we find that the Appellant was engaged in conversion of colour-coated / galvanised steel coils into profiled roofing sheets, an activity which we have already held to amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite undertaking manufacture of a distinct excisable product, the Appellant discharged duty only on job-work charges, excluding the value of raw materials supplied by traders, which formed a substantial part of the assessable value.
10.3 We find that the Appellant did not disclose in the ER-1 returns or in any other statutory document that it was undertaking manufacture on job-work basis for traders and that valuation was being adopted only on job charges, contrary to the mandate of Section 4 read with Rule 10A of 17 the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Such non- disclosure of the true nature of valuation adopted is a material omission which directly impacted the determination of correct assessable value and duty liability. 10.4 We find that invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4) and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC are fully justified on the peculiar and admitted facts of the present case. The Appellant was admittedly manufacturing identical profiled roofing sheets on its own account and clearing the same on payment of Central Excise duty, while simultaneously undertaking the very same manufacturing activity on job-work basis for traders, but discharging duty only on job-charges. This dual mode of operation clearly establishes that the Appellant was fully aware of the excisability of the product and the manufacturing nature of the process. Having accepted duty liability on identical goods manufactured on its own account, the Appellant could not, with bona fide belief, treat the same activity as non-manufacture or undervalue the goods when undertaken for others. Non-disclosure of the full assessable value in respect of job-work clearances, coupled with payment of duty only on job-charges, amounts to suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The fact that such differential practice came to light only during 18 audit further reinforces the element of deliberate non- compliance. In such circumstances, the extended period of limitation is squarely invokable, and once the ingredients of suppression and intent to evade are established, penalty under Section 11AC follows as a statutory consequence. Accordingly, both the invocation of extended period and imposition of penalty are upheld.
10.5 We also find that mere filing of ER-1 returns cannot be equated with full and true disclosure when the returns do not contain particulars necessary to enable the Department to ascertain whether duty has been correctly paid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. CCE, 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC), has held that suppression includes failure to disclose correct and complete information required for assessment, even if some information is available to the Department. 10.6 The contention of the Appellant that the Department was aware of the activity due to audit conducted in 2012 is not acceptable. Audit detection does not wipe out suppression when the assessee has not voluntarily disclosed the correct facts in statutory records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE v. Usha Rectifier Corporation (I) Ltd., 2011 (263) ELT 655 (SC), has categorically held that discovery of 19 non-payment of duty during audit does not bar invocation of the extended period where suppression or wilful misstatement is otherwise established.
10.7 We also find that the Appellant is a registered assessee engaged in commercial manufacturing activity and was fully aware of excise procedures. Adoption of a valuation method which was patently contrary to statutory provisions and settled law, resulting in substantial undervaluation and revenue loss, cannot be treated as a mere bona fide error. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, 2015 (321) ELT 3 (SC), has held that where an assessee adopts a method resulting in short-payment of duty despite being aware of legal requirements, intent to evade duty can be legitimately inferred.
10.8 We further note that the Appellant neither sought any clarification from the Department . The continued practice of paying duty only on job charges, despite manufacturing a distinct excisable product, reflects conscious disregard of statutory provisions rather than an interpretational dispute. Such conduct squarely falls within the ambit of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
2010.9 In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we hold that the Appellant suppressed material facts relating to valuation with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is legally sustainable.
10.10 On the issue of limitation, the Tribunal in Premier Roofing and Building Systems Pvt. Ltd 2024 (8) TMI 1328 - CESTAT CHENNAI sustained invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4), observing that payment of duty only on job charges, without proper disclosure of the true assessable value of the goods cleared, amounted to suppression of material facts, notwithstanding the filing of ER-1 returns. Consequentially, the Tribunal also upheld imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, holding that once suppression with intent to evade duty is established, penalty follows as a statutory consequence. The ratio laid down in Premier Roofing and Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. fully supports the Department's case on manufacture, valuation, limitation and penalty in the present appeal and lends further reinforcement to the conclusions arrived at hereinabove. 21 Whether Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is Sustainable 11.1 We find that Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates imposition of penalty equal to the duty determined where such duty has not been paid or has been short-paid by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. It is well settled that once the ingredients for invoking the extended period under Section 11A(4) are satisfied, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC follows as a statutory consequence.
11.2 In the present case, we have already recorded a clear finding that the Appellant suppressed material facts relating to valuation and adopted a valuation method contrary to law, resulting in short-payment of duty. The same facts and evidence which justify invocation of the extended period equally satisfy the statutory requirements for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. 11.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), has held that penalty under Section 11AC is not automatic for every demand but becomes mandatory once the conditions stipulated therein namely fraud, suppression or 22 wilful misstatement with intent to evade are established. In the present case, these conditions stand clearly fulfilled. 11.4 The plea of the Appellant that the issue involves interpretation of law and therefore penalty is not imposable is devoid of merit. The present case is not one of mere interpretational ambiguity but a case of conscious undervaluation by exclusion of raw material value in a job- work manufacturing arrangement, despite clear statutory provisions and settled judicial principles governing valuation. 11.5 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is fully justified and sustainable. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), calls for no interference. 11.6 In light of the detailed findings recorded above Paragraphs, we hold that: -
i. The extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been rightly invoked in this case; and ii. The imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is legally valid and sustainable.23
Accordingly, the findings of the lower authorities on limitation and penalty are upheld in toto.
12. In view of the detailed findings and conclusions recorded hereinabove, we pass the following order: -
i. We hold that the activity undertaken by the Appellant, namely conversion of colour-coated / galvanised steel sheets in coil form into profiled roofing sheets by processes such as decoiling, roll-forming, profiling, crimping and cutting, amounts to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ii. We further hold that valuation of the goods so manufactured and cleared on job-work basis is correctly governed by Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, and that adoption of the transaction value at which the goods were sold by the traders in the open market is legally proper and sustainable.
iii. We uphold the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the Appellant suppressed material facts relating to valuation and discharged duty only on job-work 24 charges despite being fully aware of the excisability of the goods and the manufacturing nature of the activity. iv. Consequently, the demand of Central Excise duty confirmed in the Order-in-Original, as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), is sustained in toto. v. Interest on the confirmed duty demand under the applicable provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also upheld.
vi. We further uphold the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the ingredients of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty stand established.
13. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. CMB/CEX/000/APP/308/17 dated 09.11.2017 is upheld, and the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in open court on 19.02.2026) Sd/- Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MK