Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Veeramachaneni Ajay Kumar vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 14 December, 2023
(1)
ST/30190 & 30191/2021
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Division Bench
Court - I
Service Tax Appeal No. 30190 of 2021
(Arising out of OIO No. VSP-EXCUS-001-COM-07-20-21 dt.15.10.2020 passed by Prl
Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam)
Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd
D.No. 11-9-16, Dasapalla Hills, HPCL Colony, ......Appellant
Visakhapatnam, AP - 530 017
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Tax
Visakhapatnam
Port Area, Visakhapatnam,
......Respondent
Andhra Pradesh - 530 035 and Service Tax Appeal No. 30191 of 2021 (Arising out of OIO No. VSP-EXCUS-001-COM-07-20-21 dt.15.10.2020 passed by Prl Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam) Veeramachineni Ajay Kumar, Managing Director, ......Appellant M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd D.No. 11-9-16, Dasapalla Hills, HPCL Colony, Visakhapatnam, AP - 530 017 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam Port Area, Visakhapatnam, ......Respondent Andhra Pradesh - 530 035 Appearance Shri M. Srinivasa Rao, CA for the Appellants.
Shri A. Rangadham, AR for the Respondent.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30424-30425/2023 Date of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date of Decision: 14.12.2023 [Order per: ANIL CHOUDHARY] The issue involved is whether the Appellant/ Assessee is liable to pay service tax on the activity of construction of 'Mechanised fertiliser handling and bagging facility' on the land leased out to M/s Sarat Chatterjee & Co (Visakhapatnam) Pvt Ltd (SCCPL) by Kakinada Seaports Limited (KSPL). The (2) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 second issue is whether extended period of limitation have been right to invoked in the facts of the case.
2. The Appellant - Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, is registered with the service tax department and was providing services in the nature of consulting engineer services and works contract services etc. During the period 2012-13 to 2014-15, the Appellant among other works, provided works contract services to M/s Sarat Chatterjee & Co (VSP) Pvt Ltd (SCCPL) by way of doing construction of 'mechanised fertiliser handling and bagging facility' on the land in the backup area of 6th berth of Kakinada Seaports Limited (KSPL) at Kakinada Deepwater Port (KDWP). This backup area was leased by SCCPL to KSPL.
3. On the other hand, the Department felt that such an activity on the leased land of KDWP was not part of the port infrastructure, being situated outside the port and therefore, not eligible for exemption under S.No.14(a) of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. However, the Appellant believed that the said activity amounts to construction of Port and is exempt under S.No.14(a) of Notification No.25/2012-ST. Therefore, pursuant to enquiry and investigation by Revenue, a show cause notice dated 25/08/2018 was issued invoking extended period of limitation, as it appeared to revenue that the civil work/works contract undertaken by them is taxable and accordingly, the demand was proposed for Rs. 4,58,56,748/- for the period 2012-13 (July 2012) to 2014-15 along with interest and penalty under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. Late fee was also proposed under section 70 read with rule 7C of ST rules.
4. The relevant facts for the purpose of this appeal are - that the Kakinada Deepwater Port (KDWP) is a Andhra Pradesh state government-owned port at Kakinada. The said port was transferred to International Seaports PTE Ltd (ISPL), Singapore by the State government under 'concessionaire agreement' dated 19th March 1999, by giving exclusive rights and authority for operation, maintenance and management of terminal with foreshore connected berths at the port. The concessionaire agreement was for 30 years and was extendable by 10+10 years. Further, more berths were to be built contiguous to the existing 3 berths in the port and all the structures and facilities constructed namely, infrastructure and buildings, land reclaimed by the concessionaire during pendency of agreement, tugs, pilot launches, as well as other flotilla for providing services to ships, open stockyards, storage sheds, railway yards, handling systems etc., were handed over to International Seaports Private Ltd (3) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 for operating the said port. ISPL incorporated a SPV in the name and style of 'Cocanada Port Co Ltd', which was later on renamed as 'Kakinada seaports Limited' (KSPL). Since 1999, KDWP is being operated by KSPL. Under the said agreement, all immovable assets belonging to KDWP, owned by government of Andhra Pradesh were transferred to KSPL and the movable assets were sold to KSPL. The agreement also provides for sharing of total income of KSPL to the extent of 20% to 22% with the State government, payable on a quarterly basis.
5. The agreement also gave right to KSPL to develop further berths contiguous to the existing berths with their own investment. Thereafter, KSPL constructed 3 additional berths at the port, taking the total number of berths to six.
6. KSPL also entered into an agreement with one 'M/s Sarat Chatterjee & Company (Visakhapatnam) Private Limited' (SCCPL) for establishment of '6 MMTPA mechanized fertilizer raw material handling system for unloading, bagging and rail/road dispatch' in KDWP, at berth no.6 and its backup area. As per agreement, the objective was to enhance the port capacity with respect to fertilizer cargo at berth no.6 and its backup area. For this purpose, the backup area at berth no.6 was given to SCCPL on lease/revenue sharing basis. As per agreement, the relevant covenants are as follows.
Responsibilities of M/s KSPL:
a. To provide design, layout of Berth No.6 and back up area for storage and warehousing.
b. To provide design and layout of proposed KDWP railway infrastructure. c. To facilitate support and coordination with SCCPL consultant for establishment of Mechanized cargo handling systems. d. To provide the site for installation of mechanized cargo handling systems including access to the said site for carrying on operations. e. To provide support infrastructure such as power connectivity with adequate load, water and roads to the above infrastructure. f. To establish and provide railway connectivity. g. To provide cooperation in relation to SCCPL's marketing and promotional efforts to attract cargo.
Responsibilities of M/s SCCPL:
a. To design, build, procure, install and commission the mechanized fertilizer and fertilizer raw material handling systems for unloading, bagging and rail/road despatch.(4)
ST/30190 & 30191/2021 b. To operate and maintain the above equipment and handle cargo unloading and loading from and to ships, warehouse operations, bagging and railway rake/truck loading.
c. To insure its equipment, operations against any third party claims. d. To comply with environmental management plan requirements with respect to cargo handling operations.
e. To comply with all the applicable laws including workmen compensation, provident fund, gratuity, etc., as applicable.
7. As per the agreement dated 27th June 2013, entered into between SCCPL and KSPL, the specified land was leased to SCCPL for a period up to March 2019 (extendable by 20 years) subject to payment of Land lease rental charge. Apart from that for the first 10 years, SCCPL was also obligated to pay license fee/royalty together with applicable taxes to KSPL, at a specified rate per metric ton of cargo handled and the said fee will be revised after 10 years on mutual consent. As such the measure of payment of lease rental was both fixed and variable.
8. As per clause 11 of the agreement, all assets created by SCCPL pursuant to the said agreement shall remain under ownership of SCCPL at all times, subject to any lien on such equipment towards securing any outstanding dues to KSPL by SCCPL. Further, in the event of termination of concession agreement, before the expiry of the concession period, including all extensions or the termination on any of the grounds mentioned, KSPL may at its option either allow SCCPL to uninstall all the equipments and remove from the site or carry out the valuation of assets by a valuer mutually agreed upon and purchase such equipment at the valued price.
9. The Appellant and SCCPL have concluded an agreement/contract as per the offer made by the Appellant for design and construction of civil works for the proposed 6 MMTPA KDWP fertiliser terminal at the 6th berth, which was accepted by SCCPL and issued LOI dated 12th September 2012, as under - (i) Warehouse & (ii) Construction of bagging plant. The LOI sets forth the scope of work, value of work, payment terms, technical specifications and time schedule for completion of the said work. As per the LOI, the work is undertaken for KDWP. Further, the LOI specifically mentions that the price mentioned is inclusive of all taxes with the exception of service tax and labour cess, which will be extra as applicable. The Appellant had paid the labour cess.
(5)ST/30190 & 30191/2021
10. During investigation, the statement of O. Ramakrishna Prasad, AGM (finance and accounts) of KSPL was recorded on 09/03/2017 who, inter alia, stated that Kakinada seaport is a minor port. KSPL was incorporated in the year 1998 and is operating the Kakinada deepwater port under 'build, operate, maintain, share and transfer basis' (BOMST) from the government of AP. The company provides 'port service' by providing pilotage, berthing, wharfing, open and closed storage facility, cargo evacuation facilities namely railways, roads etc. The port has been taken over from the government of AP, under 'concession agreement' on 'revenue sharing basis'. The billing is on quarterly basis and they pay accordingly. The Port area is about 300 acres and he also furnished the Port area map. Further, they have open area also outside the customs notified area, which is allotted for storage of cargo. They operate in the land handed over by the Port department, government of Andhra Pradesh. They have entered into agreement with SCCPL to install mechanized fertilizer facility in the backup area of berth No. 6, on payment of royalty charges for each ton of cargo handled. SCCPL are reimbursing land lease charges along with revenue share (from cargo handling) for the area occupied by them.
11. Further, vide letter dated 11/08/2015, the port officer certified that the infrastructure facilities developed for handling of fertilizers through mechanized fertilizer handling system from vessel discharge to storage inside godown, mechanized bagging and other facilities constructed and owned by SCCPL, are part of 'infrastructure facilities' of the Kakinada deepwater port. The statement of Captain K. Sridharma Sastha, Port Officer, Kakinada, was recorded on 18/07/2017, who inter alia, stated that he is working as the port officer at the said port since July 2016 and is the operational in-charge of the Kakinada Anchorage Port. The entire Kakinada port which includes Kakinada Deepwater Port and Kakinada Anchorage Port is owned by the government of Andhra Pradesh. Apart from the lease amount for the port infrastructure/land, the annual revenue is shared between KSPL and the State government in the ratio of 78:22. Thus, the State government gets 22% of the annual revenue. KSPL cannot use the facility/land for purposes other than port activity or for marine related activities only. Further KSPL can sublease the infrastructure/land given to them as far as it is related to operation, maintenance and management of the port. Further, the said port officer sent a letter dated 20/11/2017, inter alia, stating that as per the customs notification, the area where the mechanized fertilizer handling godown is installed, is outside the customs notified area. There are many handling agents operating in the Kakinada seaport and M/s (6) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited is one amongst them, who have entered into a support services agreement with KSPL.
12. Statement of Mr. Prahalad Kumar Rawat, AGM (Accounts) of SCCPL was recorded on 03/08/2018 who, inter alia, stated that they have taken land on lease at the backup area of berth No. 6 at KDWP, which was operated by KSPL. The land was taken on both fixed rental and also on payment of royalty/license fee based on the tonnage of cargo handled. They have constructed 'Mechanized fertilizer handling and bagging facility' and own the said facility which is used for handling/bagging of fertilizer. The said facility was constructed as KSPL were desirous to augment port infrastructure by way of adding mechanized fertilizer and FRM handling system for unloading, bagging and rail/road dispatch. SCCPL have capitalized the value of the fertilizer handling and bagging facility as an asset in their balance sheet. They have also furnished copy of fixed asset sheet along with the balance sheet for the relevant period. Agreement was entered with the Appellant - Vijay Nirman Company Ltd, for design and construction of civil works of the fertilizer handling and bagging facility covered by LOI dated 12/09/12. The contract value was ₹ 90,91,00,000/- which included all taxes except service tax and labour cess. Further, as per his understanding service tax was not applicable on the said activity being part of infrastructure development of port which is exempt as per the exemption Notification No. 25/2012 - ST. Further stated that the Appellant in the RA bills raised for the said facility mentions - service tax is not claimed in the bill on the assumption that service tax is not applicable for this project, being port infrastructure, subject to confirmation. If service tax is applicable the same will be claimed in the next bill. He also stated that the construction activity with respect to the fertilizer handling and bagging facility was completed in September 2014. Further, stated that in consultation with the GM (Accounts) of SCCPL, they were of the view that the construction of Fertilizer handling and bagging facility is exempt from payment of service tax, as the same falls under infrastructure development within the port.
13. Statement of Shri V.A. Kumar, Managing Director of the Appellant was recorded by Revenue on 14/08/18 who, inter alia, stated that the construction of the fertilizer handling and bagging facility commenced in September 2012 and concluded in March 2015. He also furnished the details of date-wise advances received and RA bills raised. Further, stated that they have not charged service tax on the said work on the understanding that it was part of port construction and is exempted under Notification No. 25/2012-ST. They had (7) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 consulted SCCPL who informed them orally that the said work is exempt from payment of service tax, being construction of port infrastructure. By way of abundant caution, they had mentioned in their RA bills - that if service tax is applicable, the same will be claimed in the subsequent bills. So far not paying or disclosing the amount of advance received, to service tax, he said that the same was an error on the part of their employee who was handling the accounts and tax work. The same is only attributable to oversight and/or ignorance and not with any malafide intention. They have maintained proper books of accounts and all the transactions/receipts are properly recorded. He further stated that the Appellant company have their branch offices located at multiple locations, depending on the projects. At any given point of time, they are executing several projects simultaneously. As the managing director, he only oversees activities of the company and is not involved at the project level decision-making. The issue of exemption for this work was handled by the tax team. He further stated that there was no intention to evade service tax which is evident from the facts on record, that they have mentioned in their RA bills that service tax if applicable shall be subsequently charged in the next bill. Further, as the service tax under the agreement is payable by the principal - SCCPL, and admittedly, neither they have charged in their bills nor collected any amount towards service tax, there is no intention to evade. Service tax was not paid on the understanding that the said activity is exempt.
14. It appeared to Revenue that the Appellant have suppressed and misstated the value of the said activity by not disclosing the same in the relevant portion of the ST3 returns for the period. It further appeared to Revenue that the Appellant is not entitled to the exemption under notification No. 25/2012 - ST. It further appeared that as per section 3(4) of Indian port Act 1908, port is defined as - port includes also any part of river or channel in which this Act is for the time being in force. Further, section 43 of the Indian port act defines port limits as - may include any piers, jetties, landing-places, wharves, quays, docks and other works made on behalf of the public for convenience of traffic, for safety of vessels, or for the improvement, maintenance or good governance of the port and its approaches, whether within or without high watermark, and subject to any rights of private property therein, any portions of the shore or bank within 50 yards of high watermark.
15. Accordingly, it appeared to revenue that the mechanized handling and bagging facility set up in the backup area of berth No. 6 of the port, does not seem to be part of the port, in as much as, the same does not fall under the (8) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 port limits, as mentioned herein above and hence cannot be treated strictly a port.
16. It further appeared to Revenue that a port may have hundreds of acres under its area but the actual port includes only piers, jetties, landing places, wharves, quays, docks etc., which is usually secured with a boundary wall for the sake of security and also for the sake of notifying as a customs area. In spite of the fact that the port department collects lease amount and also shares the revenue arising from the operation of the fertilizer handling and bagging plant, however, the same is not part of the port infrastructure. Further, observing that Department of Port, Government of AP, does not have any operational control over the infrastructure/land leased out to KSPL. The revenue calculated on the amount of receipts for the said work by the Appellant from the details furnished by the Appellant, RA bill/additional construction bills raised and it appeared that the total value of the services/works contract rendered is ₹ 92,75,23,227/- and accordingly, after allowing abatement of 60%, the service tax payable has been worked out at ₹ 4,58,56,748/-.
17. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand was confirmed denying the claim of exemption under notification No. 25/2012 - ST, along with interest and further, an equal amount of penalty was also imposed under section 78. The proposed penalty under section 76 and 77 were dropped as well as under section 70. Penalty was also imposed on the managing director
- Mr VA Kumar for Rs. 1 lakh under section 78A of the Act. The Appellants are in Appeal against this Order.
18. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Appellant inter- alia urges that S No. 14 in notification No. 25/2012 - ST reads - services by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation or original works pertaining to - an airport, port or railways, including Monorail or metro. Thus, as the said exemption notification categorically provides exemption for construction etc., of port, they are entitled to exemption. Hence the activity undertaken by them of construction of fertilizer handling and bagging plant is not leviable to service tax. It is further urged that the adjudicating authority have erred in demanding the tax on the said activity. The adjudicating authority have erred in ignoring the agreement between KSPL and SCCPL which is the foundation agreement under which the Appellant have been awarded the work of construction by SCCPL. If the said agreement is read in conjunction with the agreement between Appellant and SCCPL, it is evident that the work (9) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 undertaken is pertaining to port and for enhancement of port capacity with respect to fertilizer cargo at berth No. 6 and its backup area inside the port. It is evident that KSPL, who are the concessionaire duly appointed by the State government, have leased land to SCCPL in the port area, for construction of the mechanized fertilizer and FRM handling system for unloading, bagging and rail/road dispatch facility inside the port, for enhancing the port capacity with respect to fertilizer handling at berth No. 6. As the construction of the fertilizer handling and bagging facility enhances the capacity for handling fertilizers etc., at berth No. 6 of the port, therefore the said facility is very much part of the port and entitled to exemption under notification No. 25/2012. Further urges that the adjudicating authority has drawn irrational conclusions by referring to the definitions of 'port limit' under the Indian Port Act. Admittedly, the fertilizer handling and bagging facility have been constructed within the port limits, within the command area of the port, which is under the control of KSPL under the concessionaire agreement, and further on the revenue earned from the said facility constructed by the Appellant for SCCPL, the State government is also entitled to share in revenue.
19. Learned counsel also refers to the permission sought and granted by the Commissioner of Customs of Kakinada custom House, with respect to permission for operation of the mechanized fertilizer terminal inside the port at berth No. 6 and its backup area. Such permission was granted vide letter C.No. VIII/48/133/2015 - Customs Tech dated 14/05/2015 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs KCH, by the Asst Commissioner. Copy of the said letter was marked to SCCPL. Further, from the definition of port and port limit in the Indian port act 1908, it clearly emerges that landing place is part of the port, which includes Bandar, wharf, Pier, Jetty, hard ground and anyplace used for the landing, shipping or storage of goods or for the embarking and disembarking of passengers, landing place in a structure providing a place where boats can land people or goods, docking facility, dockage and dock landing in a harbor next to pier where ships are loaded and unloaded or repaired. Thus the construction activity in the facts of this case is part of the port and hence entitled for exemption under the said notification. Admittedly, berth No. 6 of the said port including the backup area is within the limits of Kakinada seaports Limited specified by the State government under section 4(2) and section 5 of the Indian Port Act, under notification No. G.O.86 dated 04/06/2001. He further relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oblum Electrical Industries Private Ltd vs CCE, Bombay [1997 (94) ELT (449)] (10) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 wherein, it was held that the words in a notification have to be construed keeping in view the object and purpose of the notification.
20. The learned counsel further urges that it is an admitted fact that the Appellant have received the consideration for the said work through banking channel. Further, Appellants have maintained proper books of accounts which have been regularly audited and all receipts and vouchers are properly maintained. Further, admittedly, under the terms of the agreement with SCCPL service tax was not part of the consideration for the work undertaken and the same was payable separately to them, if applicable. Further, admittedly, Appellant have consciously not charged service tax in their bills and they further qualified the bills by mentioning that - service tax, if applicable, shall be charged separately in the subsequent bill. Thus no case of any suppression, mis-representaion, fraud etc., is made out. The issue is wholly interpretational in nature. Thus, in the circumstances extended period of limitation is not invokable. The impugned order is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. He further relies on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) ELT 276], wherein it was held that extended period of 5 years is invokable only when there is positive act of suppression etc., on the part of the assessee i.e., the assessee is in the knowledge of the duty liability but has deliberately withheld the information from the Department.
21. Further, the Appellant was entitled to take Cenvat credit on the inputs and input services utilized for the said construction activity.
22. Learned AR for revenue relies on the impugned order and reiterates the findings. He further relies on the allegations made in the show cause notice.
23. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that admittedly, the 'Mechanized fertilizer handling and bagging facility' have been constructed at berth No. 6 and its backup area of the Kakinada Deepwater Port. Admittedly, the construction of the said baggage handling facility have enhanced the capacity of the port, which shall further enhance the revenue from the operations in the port. We further find that the agreement between KSPL and SCCPL provides to establish fertilizer and FRM handling system for unloading, bagging and rail/Road dispatch in the said port, for enhancing the port capacity with respect to fertilizer cargo. Further, both KSPL and SCCPL are obligated to market the said facility for attracting fertilizer cargo and also to jointly coordinate on matters pertaining to railway movement and allotment of the railway rakes in co-ordination with the Indian Railways. We (11) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 further find that the revenue generated from the facility so created is also shareable by the port authority of the State government under the concessionaire agreement. Admittedly, the Appellants were awarded work by SCCPL for civil work concerning Mechanized fertilizer handling & bagging facility.
24. The SCN has invoked extended period for demanding the service tax primarily on the ground that Appellants have not disclosed that they have undertaken such work, which was chargeable to service tax and that they have consciously suppressed and wilfully misdeclared the facts of providing services and its value. Further, the department did not agree with the explanation given by the Appellant that the reason for not paying service tax by them was on account of their understanding that no service tax was payable and that they were entitled to exemption. There is no cogent and credible evidence on record clearly bringing out a deliberate and intentional attempt on the part of the Appellant to evade duty. The Adjudicating Authority has also reiterated the views of the department as enumerated in the SCN and has come to the conclusion that they have made undue financial gain by evading payment of service tax. Further, such act would not have come to the notice of the department but for the investigation by the DGGI. He has however, failed to take note of the fact that no service tax was actually charged or received and the fact that they had informed their principal that in case the service tax payable on their activity, they would charge the same separately. There is also an important aspect that the customs department had, vide letter dated 14.05.2015, permitted SCCPL to operate Mechanized fertilizer handling & bagging facility inside KDWP in the backup area at berth No.6. Therefore, the department was also aware of such activity being undertaken by SCCPL.
25. We further find that admittedly, the Appellant was registered with the service tax department. Their turnover was in crores and they have maintained proper books of accounts which were regularly audited from time to time by the department as well as the auditors of the Appellant company, as required under the provisions of the Companies Act as well as other tax laws. Further, admittedly, Appellants have regularly filed the returns (Form ST-3) with the department. Admittedly, the service tax was neither charged nor collected by the Appellant based on their understanding that service tax is not payable on such activity as the work is in respect of construction of port, which was exempt during the relevant period under Notification No.25/2012-ST. Admittedly, there was provision in the Agreement between Appellant and SCCPL that service tax, (12) ST/30190 & 30191/2021 if applicable, shall be paid separately by the principal. The Appellants have also mentioned in their bills raised on the principal that - service tax, if payable, shall be charged in the supplementary/subsequent bills. Further, we find the statement of the Managing Director of the Appellant company - Mr. V.A. Kumar was recorded and from the statement no mens rea is made out, for not depositing the tax. There is no positive act of suppression or any misstatement on the part of the Appellant. We find that the issue is wholly interpretational in nature. We also find that service tax, if any, paid by this Appellant would have been otherwise available as Cenvat credit to their principal, who was rendering taxable services under the head "Port services".
26. In view of our aforementioned observations and findings, we hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable by the Revenue as no sufficient evidence and grounds have been brought on record for invoking extended period. Admittedly, SCN dated 25.08.2018 has been issued after the end of 40 months, as calculated from April 2015. The normal limitation during the period was 30 months, as substituted for 18 months vide Finance Act, 2016. Accordingly, we hold that SCN is hit by limitation, as extended period is not available to the Revenue in the admitted facts and circumstances. Since, on the grounds of limitation itself, the SCN is not sustainable, we do not examine the case on merit as to whether or not the Appellants were eligible for the benefit of Notification No.25/2012-ST, in the facts of the case.
27. In view of our aforementioned findings, we allow both the Appeals and set aside the Impugned Order. Appellants shall be entitled to consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with law.
(Pronounced in the Open Court on 14.12.2023) (ANIL CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Veda