Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Royal Foodstuffs Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner,Central Goods And ... on 22 April, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Excise Appeal No. 87611 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. KLH-EXCUS-000-APP-097to 099-2015-16 dated
29.09.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Pune Appeal-II CX at Goa)
M/s Royal Foodstuffs Private Ltd., .....Appellants
Plot No. D-21 & D-22, MIDC,
Taswade Industrial Area, Karad Taluk
SataraDistrict - 415 109
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & .....Respondent
Service Tax, Kolhapur Vasant Plaza, 4th and 5th Floor, C S No.1079/2, KH Rajaram Road, Bengal Chowk Kolhapur - 416001 Appearance:
Shri M.D. Sathe, Consultant for the Appellants Shri Amrendra Kumar Jha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. A/85425/2024 Date of Hearing: 03.11.2023 Date of Decision: 22.04.2024 PER : M.M.PARTHIBAN This appeal has been filed by M/s Royal Foodstuffs Private Limited (herein after referred to as 'appellants', for short), assailing the Orders-in- Appeal KLH-EXCUS-000-APP- 097 to 099 - 2015-16 dated 29.09.2015 (referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Pune Appeal-II CX (at Goa).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered under jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for manufacture of excisable goods viz., fruit pulp, juices and vegetable product. The appellants are also registered under service tax statute in respect of the taxable services such as Manpower Recruitment Services and Security Services etc. for discharging service tax liability on the taxable services received by it under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) basis as per Rule 2(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 2 E/87611/2015 1994. During the disputed period, the appellants had exported the entire finished goods manufactured by it. Central Excise duty is not leviable on exportation of the goods and thus, the appellants was not in a position to utilize the Cenvat credit available in its books of accounts. For claiming refund of such accumulated credit, the appellants have filed three refund claims under Rule 5B of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No.12/2014-C.E. (N.T.) dated 03.03.2014 in the prescribed form. On scrutiny of the refund applications, the department felt there were certain discrepancies by which the appellants are not eligible for refunds and accordingly issue show cause notices, denying the claim for refund. These refund applications were adjudicated by the Original authority in rejecting the refund applications. The details of three refund applications filed by the appellants and the respective Order-in-Original are given in brief as below:
Sl. Impugned Order-in-Original No. and Date& Period of Amount of No common ST Registration ref. Demand refund Order-in- involved Appeal No. (in Rs.)
1. KLH- Satara/28/Adj/2015-16 dated 01.10.2013 to (2,69,604) EXCUS- 28.02.2015 & AAGCR2434QSD001 31.03.2014 *1,74,292
2. 000-APP- Satara/29/Adj/2015-16 dated 01.10.2013 to 5,00,591 097to099 - 31.03.2014 28.02.2015 & AAGCR2434QSD002 2015-16
3. Satara/30/Adj/2015-16 dated 01.04.2014 to 5,90,576 dated 28.02.2015 & AAGCR2434QSD001 30.09.2014 29.09.2015 Total amount of refund 12,65,459 *Re-determined in the Original Order dated 28.02.2015 after adjusting excess claim of Rs.95,312/-
The appellants being aggrieved of the above orders of original authority had filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune Appeal-II CX,who upon consideration of their submissions had upheld all the three original orders and rejected the appeals filed by the appellants, by passing the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
3. Learned Consultant appearing for appellants stated that they had rightly claimed the refunds in terms of Notification No.12/2014-C.E. (N.T.) dated 03.03.2014, which are eligible to them as they had paid the service tax in terms of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. In support of their claim, he submitted order of the Tribunal in their own case in Final Order No.A/91375-31377/17 dated05.12.2017 and also consequent Order-in- Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-370/18-19 dated 17.10.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune for allowing their appeals.
3E/87611/2015
4. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order and stated that rejection of appeals filed by the appellants is sustainable. Therefore, he had requested that the appeals filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case.
6. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the three Orders-in-Original in which the adjudged demands were confirmed by original authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had discussed the following two issues viz., (i) whether the appellant who pays service tax under reverse charge mechanism (a recipient of taxable service but liable to pay service tax/duty in terms of provisions of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994) can also be called 'output service provider'? (ii) Whether manufacturer of goods having 'nil' tariff rate of duty is eligible for Cenvat Credit at all?, and in addressing these two issues, he had held that the orders of original authorities do not call for any interference by concluding on these two issues as follows. On issue (i), he concluded that Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 has a limited purpose of ensuring that the liability to pay tax is shifted to the tax-payer and he must abide by the other provisions of service tax laws. On issue (ii) he concluded that 'it is clear that the appellant manufacturing goods, having nil rate of duty, were not eligible for credit at all'. Thus, he dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
7.1 It is an admitted fact on record that the appellants are registered with the department for payment of service tax on the taxable services received by it and had discharged the service tax liability on reverse charge mechanism, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. The relevant legal provisions are extracted and given below for ease of reference:
"Charge of service tax on and after Finance Act, 2012.
66B. There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of fourteen per cent on the value of all services, other than those services specified in the negative list, provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory by one person to another and collected in such manner as may be prescribed.
Payment of service tax.
68. (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.4
E/87611/2015 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of 18[such taxable services as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in section 66B and all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service:
Provided that the Central Government may notify the service and the extent of service tax which shall be payable by such person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person to the extent so specified and the remaining part of the service tax shall be paid by the service provider."
A plain reading of the above charging provisions of service tax under Section 66B ibid, clearly provide that service tax is leviable on all services, other than the services specified under negative list, when provided by one person to another and collected in a manner prescribed under the statue. Further, every person who is providing the taxable service, i.e., services on which levy of service tax apply as per Section 66B ibid, is required to pay the service tax. However, an exception has been created by providing a non obstante clause, whereby service tax shall be paid by such other persons and in the manner as may be prescribed under a notification issued by Section 68(2) ibid. in this respect, as a part ofnon obstante clause, it has also been provided that all provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. Accordingly, all the provisions of Service Tax Statue including those relating to registration, filing of returns, liability for penal action etc., apply to such prescribed persons.
7.2 CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994). Rule 5 ibid provides for refund of Cenvat credit to a manufacturer who exports the final product or intermediary product for export without payment of duty; or to your service provider who provides output service is exported without payment of service tax, subject to certain conditions specified therein. Further, Rule 5B ibid also provide refund of service tax in respect of services notified under Section 68(2) ibid. The relevant legal provision is extracted and given below:
RULE 5B. Refund of CENVAT credit to service providers providing services taxed on reverse charge basis.
A provider of service providing services notified under sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act and being unable to utilise the CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services for payment of service tax on such output services, shall be allowed refund of such unutilised CENVAT credit 5 E/87611/2015 subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Board by notification in the Official Gazette.
Notification No.30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 has been issued specifying the taxable services for which the provisions of Section 68(2) ibid would apply and have mentioned in table attached to the said notification the prescribed percentage of service tax that is payable by such other persons notified therein. Out of the 12 services described in the table, except in respect of works contract service, 100% of the service tax is required to be paid by such other person, and not by the provider of service. CENVAT credit scheme was introduced with the object of removing to a great extent the cascading burden in indirect taxes by expanding the coverage of credit for all inputs, including capital goods. Thus, service tax paid on the taxable services shall be available as CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 3 ibid, and when such credit is unable to be utilized for payment of duty/tax, then the same shall be refunded under Rules 5, 5A and 5B ibid. In respect of the payment of service tax on reverse charge mechanism, the relevant rule for refund of CENVAT credit is Rule 5B ibid.
7.3 In tracing the history of CENVAT credit, it is worthwhile to note that on the basis of the recommendations of the Indirect Taxation Enquiry Committee constituted in 1976 under Shri L K Jha, input tax credit mechanism of value added tax at manufacturing level (MANVAT). In 1986, the recommendation of the Jha Committee on moving on to value added tax in manufacturing was partially implemented by calling it as Modified Value Added Tax (MODVAT). In principle, duty was payable on value addition but in the beginning it was limited to select inputs and manufactured goods only with one-to-one correlation between input and manufactured goods for eligibility to take input tax credit. The comprehensive coverage of MODVAT was achieved by 1996-97 by introduction of Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT).Later CENVAT scheme also allowed credit of services and the basket of inputs, capital goods and input services could be used for payment of both central excise duty and service tax. Thus, it does not stand to reason, for denying input tax credit and its refund in certain situations, on the ground that the legal provisions of such a refund is not applicable to such other persons, who have been made liable to pay service tax under Section 68(2) ibid.
7.4 From the records and the details submitted by both the sides, it is found that the appellants have filed a number of appeals in respect of the 6 E/87611/2015 very same issue and these have already been disposed of by the Tribunal in the following manner as indicated below:
Appeal No. & Date of Gist of decision Further, action on Gist of subsequent CESTAT Order remand, if any decision A/21054-21055 dt. Party's appeal - -
29.11.2017 dismissed A/91375-91377 dt. Matter remanded to Order-in-Appeal Appellant party found 05.12.2017 Commissioner (A) dt. 17.10.2018 eligible for refund A/85198-85199 dt. Party's appeal - - 31.01.2018 dismissed A/86969 dt. Party's appeal allowed. Earlier order of the Tribunal distinguished 08.05.2018 and it does not have any binding precedent for deciding this issue A/85649 dt. Matter remanded to Order-in-Appeal Appellant party found 05.03.2020 Commissioner (A) dt. 17.10.2018 eligible for refund
Further, it is also found that the above issue is no more open to dispute as in the appellants' own case, the Tribunal has held that they are eligible to refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5B ibid and distinguished the other cases where the Tribunal had ordered for dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants. The relevant paragraph of the Final Order No. A/86969/2018 dated 08.05.2018 is extracted as follows:
"6. It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent does not provide any taxable service and is also not registered with the Service Tax department for providing any taxable service. However, the respondent is registered with the department for payment of service tax on the taxable services received by it and discharged the service tax liability on reverse charge mechanism, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the respondent discharged the service tax liability in the capacity of recipient of service, Rule 5B should be equated with Rule 5 of the rules, for grant of refund of service tax paid on the taxable services. I find that this Tribunal in the case of United News of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi -
2017 (51) STR 23 (Tri. - Del) and CCE & S.T., Indore v. Cummins Technologies India Ltd. - 2017 (7) GSTL 69 (Tri. - Del.) has held that when the recipient pays service tax on receiving the taxable service, the provisions of section 66 of the Act [pari-materia with Section 68(2)] should be available for claim of the benefit contained in the Notification 17/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004. Relevant paragraph of the decision in the case of Cummins Technologies India Ltd. (supra) is extracted below:-
"6. Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 is the charging Section, which provides that in respect of taxable services mentioned therein, service tax shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Even for the import of service, the service tax has to be levied under Section 66 ibid. Since a deeming fiction was created in Rule 66A ibid, providing for payment of service tax by the recipient of service, such levy is in consonance with the charging provisions contained in Section 66 ibid. Thus, the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act should also be applicable in respect of the service tax paid under Section 66A ibid. In the present case, since the appellant is liable to pay service tax as a recipient of the taxable service, the provision of Section 66 ibid should also be applicable to it. In other words, upon fixing the responsibility for payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism, no distinction can be placed between the service receiver and service provider for the purpose of Section 66 ibid. Therefore, we are of the view that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 17/2004- S.T., dated 10-9-2004 should also be available to the respondent. We 7 E/87611/2015 find that the Tribunal in the case of United News of India (supra) while interpreting the provisions of Section 66A ibid, has held that the benefit of the exemption should also be available to the recipient of service. The relevant paragraph in the said order is extracted herein below :
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. The only dispute in the case is that the eligibility of the appellant for the exemption under Notification cited above as a recipient of service. A plain reading of Section 66A brings out the legal obligation of the recipient of service in certain situations. The said Section stipulates that taxable service shall be treated as if provided by the recipient of service in India and accordingly, all the provisions of Chapter V shall apply. We find that the tax liability is put on the appellant on such legal fiction. It is not legally tenable to hold that such legal fiction will have limited application only for payment of service tax and not with reference to any concession available to such service tax. No such implication can be read from the provisions of Section 66A. Further, we also note that the conditions mentioned in the Notification 13/2010 have been fulfilled and there is no dispute on that score. When the provider of service is put to liability to discharge service tax as per provisions of Section 66A all the provisions of Chapter V shall have full force for charge and collection of service tax. The exemption now claimed is part and parcel of the provisions of service tax as the Notification 4 ST/58841/2013-ST [DB] has been issued under the powers vested under Section 93 of the said Act. Section 68(2) Appeal No.E/85093/17 5 specifies the person to pay service tax as per the rate prescribed under Section 66. We note that Section 66A is applicable to all services which are specified under clause (105) of Section 65. However, no rates are specified.
Considering the legal position as stipulated clearly in Section 66A, we find that the legal fiction cannot be restricted only to collection of tax without applying any concession of the notification applicable thereto when the conditions of the said Notifications are fulfilled by the recipient of such service. Accordingly, the finding in the impugned order on this issue is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed on this issue."
7. The Tribunal in the case of the respondent (supra) relied upon by learned A.R. for Revenue has not specifically discussed the issue of liability to pay service tax by the recipient of service and its implication for claiming the benefit through refund claim. Such aspect has not been discussed by the Tribunal, owing to the reason that the same were not pleaded by the parties to such appeal. Thus, the said decision will not have any binding precedent for deciding the case in hand."
8.1 As regards the second issue of eligibility to CENVAT credit to a manufacturer of goods having 'nil' tariff rate of duty, as is the case of the present appellants, I would firstly like to refer the relevant legal provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is extracted below:
"RULE 6. Obligation of a manufacturer or producer of final products and a provider of output service. --
(1) The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input as is used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services or input service as is used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods and their clearance upto the place of removal or for provision of exempted services and the credit not allowed shall be calculated and paid by the manufacturer or the provider of output service, (6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either -
[(i) cleared to a unit in a special economic zone or to a developer of a special economic zone for their authorised operations; or
(ii) cleared to a hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking; or 8 E/87611/2015
(iii) cleared to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park or Software Technology Park; or
(iv) supplied to the United Nations or an international organization for their official use or supplied to projects funded by them, on which exemption of duty is available under notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 108/95-Central Excise, dated the 28th August, 1995, number G.S.R. 602(E), dated the 28th August, 1995; or (iva) supplied for the use of foreign diplomatic missions or consular missions or career consular offices or diplomatic agents in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise, dated the 17th March, 2012, number G.S.R. 163(E), dated the 17th March, 2012]; or
(v) cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; or....."
The above legal provisions under Sub-rule (6)(v) to Rule 6 clearly provide that the restriction or denial for non-availability of Cenvat credit under various sub-rules of Rule 6 shall not be applicable for manufacture of exempted goods which are cleared for export. Thus, the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the appellants being manufacturer of Nil rated goods, would stand covered by the restriction under Rule 6(1) ibid is incorrect and is not legally sustainable.
8.2 Furthermore, the above issue is no more res integra in view of the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India Vs. Sharp Menthol India Limited - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 212 (Bom.). The relevant paragraphs of the above judgement is extracted and given below:
"21. Basic argument of the revenue is that, where the duty paid inputs are used in the manufacture of final products which are exempted from payment of excise duty, then Cenvat credit on input is not allowable under Rule 6(1) of 2004 Rules. It is contended that where inputs are used in the manufacture of both exempted as well as dutiable final products, then the manufacturer can avail the input credit only on that quantity of input used in the manufacture of dutiable final product provided separate accounts are maintained for receipt, consumption and inventory of input used in the manufacture of final products as provided under Rule 6(2) of 2004 Rules or the manufacturer not opting to maintain separate accounts pays an amount on clearance of the exempted goods at the rate specified under Rule 6(3) of 2004 Rules. In the present case, it is contended by the revenue that the assessee has neither maintained separate accounts regarding inputs used in the manufacture of exempted/dutiable final products as provided under Rule 6(2) nor paid an amount on clearance of exempted menthol crystals as provided under Rule 6(3) of 2004 Rules and, therefore, the assessee could not avail credit of duty paid on menthol (input) and consequently, the duty paid on peppermint oil by debiting the input credit being not valid the question of allowing rebate of that duty does not arise at all.
22. It is true that under Rule 6(1) of the 2004 Rules, credit of duty paid on inputs is not allowable when the inputs are used in the manufacture of 9 E/87611/2015 exempted final products. But Rule 6(2) of 2004 Rules provide that where the inputs are used in the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable final products, then credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable final products is allowable, provided separate accounts regarding the receipt, consumption and inventory of the input used in the manufacture of dutiable final product are maintained. However, Rule 6(6) of 2004 Rules provides that the provisions contained in Rule 6(1) to 6(4) of 2004 Rules shall not apply in certain specified cases, where the excisable goods are cleared without payment of duty. Clause (v) of Rule 6(6) of the 2004 Rules provides that where the exempted goods are cleared for export without payment of duty under Central Excise Rules, 2002, then the provisions contained in Rule 6(1) to 6(4) of 2004 Rules shall not apply. Thus, Rule 6(6) of 2004 Rules carves out an exception to the applicability of the provisions contained in Rule 6(1) to 6(4) in certain specified cases.
23. In the present case, admittedly, the exempted menthol crystals have been cleared for exports under bond without payment of duty and, therefore, the case of the assessee would be covered under Rule 6(6)(v) of 2004 Rules and consequently Rule 6(1) to 6(4) of 2004 Rules would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In other words, in the present case, the credit of duty paid on menthol used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals is allowable, because, exempted menthol crystals have been exported under bond without payment of duty.
24. The question then to be considered is, whether excise duty on exported peppermint oil could be paid by debiting Cenvat credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals?
25. Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules specifically provides that where the exempted final product is cleared without payment of duty under bond, then the credit of duty paid on input used in the manufacture of the exempted final product shall be allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any final product by way of adjustment of input credit and where for any reasons such adjustment is not possible, then refund of the unutilized input credit would be allowed.
26. In the present case, the assessee on export of exempted menthol crystals has utilized the Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals for paying the excise duty on peppermint oil cleared for export as provided under Rule 5 of 2004 Rules. Thus, in the facts of the present case, since the credit of duty paid on input used in the manufacture of exempted final product is utilized for payment of excise duty on exported peppermint oil, the assessee, instead of getting refund of input credit under Rule 5 of 2004 Rules, is entitled to rebate of duty paid on exported peppermint oil as provided under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
27. The argument of the Revenue that in the present case, the credit of duty paid on menthol is not allowable or has lapsed for the reason that the duty paid menthol has been used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals cannot be accepted, because, admittedly the exempted menthol crystals have not been cleared for home consumption but have been cleared for export under bond and, therefore, Rule 6(1) to 6(4) of 2004 Rules would not apply, but Rule 6(6)(v) would apply. In other words, non allowability of input credit under Rule 6(1) to 6(4) of 2004 Rules is applicable only when the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products are cleared for home consumption without payment of duty and not when exempted final products are cleared for export without payment of duty under bond. In the present case, exempted menthol crystals has been exported without payment of duty under bond and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to take the credit of duty paid on menthol used in the manufacture of exempted menthol and utilize that credit for paying duty on clearance of peppermint oil. Since peppermint oil was exported on payment of duty, the 10 E/87611/2015 assessee was entitled to claim rebate of duty paid on exported peppermint oil under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
28. In the result, we hold that in the facts of the present case, since the exempted menthol crystals as well as dutiable peppermint oil manufactured out of duty paid menthol have been exported by the assessee, the provisions of Rule 6(1) to 6(4) of the 2004 Rules are not applicable and as per Rule 5 of 2004 Rules, the assessee was entitled to avail the Cenvat credit of duty paid on menthol used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals and utilize the said credit for payment of duty on clearance of peppermint oil either for home consumption or for export. In the present case, since the peppermint oil has been exported on payment of duty, the assessee was entitled to claim rebate of the duty paid on peppermint oil."
The above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay was relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding similar issue in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Drish shoes Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 2887 of 2012, and the said order is extracted and given below:
9. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, and in terms of the judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the Order of the Tribunal dated 08.05.2018 (supra) in the appellants' own case, it is found that there are no strong grounds to deny refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5B of CENVAT Credit 11 E/87611/2015 Rules, 2004. Consequently the impugned order dated 29.09.2015 is not legally sustainable.
10. In the result, the appellants are eligible for total refund of CENVAT credit of Rs. 12,65,459/- in respect of the claims which have been given in detail at paragraph 2 above. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants, with consequential relief.
(Order pronounced in open court on 22.04.2024) (M.M. Parthiban) Member (Technical) Sinha