Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs Commissioner,Central Goods And ... on 16 February, 2023
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
REGIONAL BENCH
Excise Appeal No. 898 of 2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/RKS/84/2012 dated 19.03.2012 of the
Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-II)
M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Appellant
Kirloskarwadi, Sangli 416 308.
Vs.
Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur Respondent
Vasant Plaza, Rajaram Road, Kolhapur 416 003.
Appearance:
Ms. Chandani Tanna, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Xavier Mascarenhas, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 16.02.2023 Date of Decision: 16.02.2023 FINAL ORDER NO. A/85888/2023 PER: SANJIV SRIVASTAVA This appeal is directed against order in appeal No PII/RKS/84/2012 dated 19.03.2012 of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-II. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld Order in Original No 18/ADC/CEX/2011 dated 21.09.2011 which held as follows:
"ORDER i. I confirm the demand and recovery of differential duty of Rs.13,54,660/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Fifty Four thousand Six hundred Sixty only) [Basic Rs.13,17,092/- + Rs.26,342/- Ed. Cess + Rs.11,227/- S & H Ed. Cess] short paid on HYPN SET/SYSTEM and HVAC SET/SYSTEM by wrongly availing Notification No. 10/2006-CE dated 1.3.2008 under the provisions of proviso to Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act 1944; appropriate the amount of Rs.13,54,660/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Fifty Four thousand Six hundred Sixty only) paid vide Cenvat Part-II Entry 2 E/898/2012 No.14 dt.23.7.2010 and Cenvat Part-II Entry No 22 dt. 14.9.2010 by vacating the protest and adjust against above demand. 1 ignore the excess payment of Rs. 287/- paid by the noticee inadvertently, i I order to pay interest at appropriate rate under Section 11AB of the Act, 1944;
iii. I impose penalty Rs.13,54,660/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Fifty Four thousand Six hundred Sixty only) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, if they pay the amount of demand confirmed, interest as well as penalty within 30 days of the communication of this order, the penalty shall be reduced to 25 percent of the amount confirmed.
The Jurisdictional Deputy / Assistant Commissioner shall take appropriate action for recovery of interest and penalty."
2.1 Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Power driven pumps/pump set/systems, Hydro pneumatic set/systems (HYPN set/system), heat ventilation and Air conditioning system (HVAC set system), turbine, valves etc. and parts thereof, falling under chapter 84 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They have cleared the said goods after availing exemption under Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., dated 01-03-2006, as amended. However, it appeared that in respect of Hydro Pneumatic Set/System (HYPNSET/SYSTEM), Heat ventilation, Air Conditioning Set/System (HVAC SET/SYSTEM), the appellant is not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., dated 01-03- 2006, as amended, as the said goods are not complying with description of the goods and its utility, as mentioned in column No. 3 of Serial No. 17 of the said Notification. As the said goods have been cleared by the appellants at concessional rate of duty during the period from 27.02.2006 to 04.05.2010, under the said notification, the appellant short paid central excise duty amounting to Rs.13,54,660/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 15.02.2011 was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of the said duty along with interest payable and also proposing imposition of penalty on the appellant. The said show cause notice has been adjudicated by the original authority as stated in para 1 above and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) has been dismissed. Hence this appeal.
3E/898/2012 3.1 We have heard Ms Chandani Tanna, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Xavier Mascarenhas, Superintendent, Authorized Representative for the revenue.
3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned counsel submits:
⮚ Impugned order rejects the appeal unfairly. ⮚ The classification of the goods has nowhere been challenged.
⮚ Principal Functionality is deciding factor for goods to be classified in a particular heading.
⮚ No alternate classification has been proposed by the revenue while rejecting the classification proposed by the appellants.
⮚ Penalty levied is bad in law.
3.3 Learned authorized representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments.
4.2 The issue involved in the present case is no longer res- integra. Tribunal has in the case of Forge & Blower Industries Ltd [2012 (84) ELT 609 (T-Ahmd)] held as follows:
10. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Show Cause Notices were issued on the ground that the appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-
2006 by clearing the Centrifugal Pumps without attaching prime mover i.e. motor/engine. Demands have been confirmed on the ground that the pumps, though basically designed to lift water from one point to another, there is no energy in form of motor and the benefit of notification can be availed only if the pumps are attached with electric motors. It is undisputed that such Centrifugal Pumps which are manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter Heading No. 84.13. It is also seen that there is no other classification of pumps was enumerated. It is necessary to read the main Chapter Heading 84.13, which reads as "Pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device; liquid elevators", the product manufactured by the assessee falls under Chapter Heading 8413.10 which has description as "Primarily designed to handle water". It can be seen 4 E/898/2012 that basically the said tariff heading is for pumps which handles liquid and the product manufactured by the appellant is primarily designed to handle water, is an undisputed position. On perusal of the relevant part of the notification as extracted hereinabove, it can be seen that the description of the goods given in the tariff entry and the description of the goods provided in the notification match inasmuch as they are for Centrifugal Pumps "primarily designed for handling water". Both the entries are related to pumps designed to handle water. One of the reasons given by the lower authorities for denial of exemption notification to the appellant is on the ground that the notification provides exemption only when pumps are power driven i.e. the pumps should have motors attached to them. It is to be noted that once the pump is designed and manufactured "primarily for handling of water", it becomes eligible for exemption, as the heading in notification specifically talks about the Centrifugal Pumps (horizontal or vertical). The said Centrifugal Pumps, as manufactured by the appellant, can be used for some other purpose, is not brought on record by the Revenue, while it is the claim of the appellant that such Centrifugal Pumps manufactured by them can be used only and designed for the purpose of for handling water. It is to be noted that the characteristics of the Centrifugal Pumps always remains the same whether the motor/engine is attached to it or not. The contention of the ld. Counsel that the engine/motor is not a part of the pump, has a strong force as the entry in the exemption notification, though talks about the power driven, does not specify what would power driven pump mean. Be that as it may, the said entry in exemption notification specifically talks about the Centrifugal Pumps which are the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant.
11. It is seen that C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 224/58/96-CX., dated 26-6-1996 had given the following clarification with regard to the classification and excisability of the power driven pumps sets for handling water, is reproduced in toto.
"Circular No. 224/58/96-CX., dated 26-6-1996 Sub. : CE - Classification and excisability of Power Driven Pump Sets for handling water - Regarding.5
E/898/2012 I am directed to say that the Confederation of Indian Industry has pointed out about divergence in practice of classification of Power Driven Pump Sets for handling water. A P.D. Pump Set may be a pump having an inbuilt prime mover designed and built as a complete unit, called a mono block pump-set, or a pump and a prime mover being two separable units whether coupled or not put/intended to be put on a common platform. It has been represented that it is classified in some Commissionerates under Chapter Heading 84.13 extending the benefit of Notification No. 56/95, dated 16-3-1995 (previous Notification No. 46/94, dated 1-3-1994) either fully or partially whereas, other Commissionerates are classifying this product under Chapter Heading 84.79 hereby denying the benefit of exemption.
2. The matter has been examined in depth. Board in its F.No. 151/13/92-CX.4 (Pt.) (Circular No. 11/11/94, dated 2-2-1994) has held that electric motors or rotors or stators are components parts of P.D. Pumps. Following the same analogy, the prime mover, i.e. I.C. Engine may be treated as an integral part of P.D. Pump. The Board takes note of Note 3 of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff which states that composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines adapted for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function. As the principal function of a pump set is that of the pump, the pump set is rightly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 84.13.
3. Hence, the Board is of the view that Power Driven Pump Sets are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.13 and if such Power Driven Pump Sets are primarily meant for handling water, the benefit of Notification No. 56/95, dated 16-3-1995 will be admissible to the whole pump set."
12. On reading of the above given clarification, it is to be noted that C.B.E. & C. is also of the view that the power driven pump sets are also classified under Chapter Heading No. 84.13 if such pump sets are primarily meant for handling water.
13. Once the fact that the product manufactured by the appellant with or without motor gets classified under Chapter Heading 84.13 6 E/898/2012 and if it is undisputed that such pumps are primarily for the purpose of handling water, then the denial of exemption notification to the appellant would be incorrect.
14. As regards the interpretation of the exemption notification, is a similar issue in respect of whether concrete mix manufactured at the site of construction for use in the construction work at site would include ready mix concrete or not, was in dispute which was referred to Larger Bench. The Tribunal in the Larger Bench in the case of Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 503 (Tri.-LB) (wherein I was one of the Member), has specifically held that when the exemption notification exempts concrete mix which includes ready mix concrete, the exemption notification should not be denied. In order to appreciate the correct position, the entire judgment is reproduced.
"This matter is referred to Larger Bench by a division Bench in its referral Order No. 207/05-EX., dated 26-7-2005. At Para No. 2 the referral Bench noted as follows :-
"It is the contention of the revenue that the issue remains covered against the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 216. Learned counsel for the assessee also fairly concedes this position, even though he seeks to distinguish that decision on some other grounds like there being no sale or purchase.
We note that the exemption is in regard to "concrete mix manufacturer" at site and used at site. Perusal of the Indian Standard specifications and other materials produced before us would appear to suggest that there is no difference between concrete mix and ready mix concrete. After all, concrete mix for construction is the same irrespective of method of preparation. In this view of the matter, we are not able to agree with the decision in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh. That decision would appear to require reconsideration by a Larger Bench. Registry is, therefore, directed to place the file before the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench."
2. In this case the appellant was executing a project of construction of a Dam known as "Ranjit Sagar Dam". The 7 E/898/2012 appellants in the course of construction of Dam, prepared concrete mix at site and used the same in the Dam construction. The Revenue demanded duty on the said concrete mix on the ground that the said concrete mix would be covered under the Tariff Sub- heading No. 3824.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 relying upon Central Board of Excise & Customs Circulars dated 1-2-96, 23-6-97 and 6-1-98 and decision of the Tribunal in the case Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 216. It is the contention of the appellant that they are eligible for exemption from payment of duty vide Serial No. 51 of Notification No. 4/97. The adjudicating authority relying upon the Board's Circular and the case of Continental Foundation classified the concrete mix under Sub-heading No. 3824.90 and confirmed the demand for the period 1-3-97 to 1-6-98 and also imposed the penalty and interest was also sought to be recovered from the appellants.
3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants contends that the product manufactured by the appellant would not get covered under the Sub-heading as Ready Mix Concrete. It was submitted that the product "Ready Mix Concrete" and the "Concrete Mix" are the same, and reliance was placed on Standards IS 4926 : 2003 and IS 456 : 2000 as issued by Bureau of Indian Standards. It was submitted that the Standards for Concrete Mix are covered under the IS 456 : 2000, which lays down the procedure for "Plain and reinforced concrete - code of practice" in detail, while IS 4926 : 2003 lays down the standard of "Ready Mixed Concrete - Code of practice," wherefrom it would be noticed that the selection and quality of ingredients like cement, gravel chemical, etc. are laid down in detail in IS 456 :
2000 and IS 4926 : 2000 relies upon the earlier Standards IS 456 : 2000 for quality of ingredients. It was urged that there is no difference between "plain & reinforced concrete" and "Ready Mixed Concrete". It was also contended that the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 4/97 is available to the appellants as the concrete mix is manufactured by the appellants "at the site of construction" of a Dam Intervening.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records.
8E/898/2012
5. In the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture case (supra) the Tribunal after noting the process of manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete and Concrete Mix at Para No. 14 came to the following conclusion :-
"Thus, on carefully taking into consideration the manufacturing process adopted by the appellants, the Board's instructions and the expert opinion of the BIS on the subject, we are of the view that the product manufactured by the appellants is RMC falling under sub-heading 3824.20 of the Central Excise Tariff and shall be subject to the corresponding rate of duty. This RMC is not eligible to the exemption under Sl. No. 51 of the Table attached to Notification No. 4/97-C.E. as this notification exempts concrete mix manufactured and used at the site of construction and not the RMC."
Advocate also points out that in writ petition No. 15035 of 1995 in the Hon'ble High Court at Madras, the department has accepted and conceded that Ready Mix Concrete manufactured at site is eligible for exemption and now department cannot take a different stand here. He also submits that in an identical issue in the case of Larsen & Tubro Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted the civil appeal filed by L & T as reported at 2006 (194) E.L.T. A57.
6. The learned D.R. on the other hand contends that the concrete mix manufactured by the appellant is transported by the appellants to the site of the Dam and there is a transportation of the concrete mix. It was submitted that the concrete mix manufactured with the aid of sophisticated machinery would mean that the same is covered under Heading of "Ready Mixed Concrete." It was also urged that benefit of exemption under notification would not be available to the appellants as the said notification exempts only concrete mix and does not exempt "Ready Mix Concrete."
7. The exemption granted under Serial No. 51 of Notification No. 4/97 during the relevant period stood as under :
Sl. Chapter or Heading/ Description of goods No. Sub-heading No. Rate "51. 38 Concrete mix manufactured at the site of Nil construction for use in construction work at such site"9
E/898/2012
8. During the relevant period i.e. from 1-3-97 to 1-6-98 the Chapter Heading Nos. were as under :-
"1996-97 38.22 Prepared binders for foundry moulds or 20% cores; chemical products and 3823.00 preparations of the chemicals or allied industries (including those consisting mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included; residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included 1997-98 38.24 Prepared binders for foundry moulds or Cores; chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included; Residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included 3824.10 - Phosphogypsum 13%
- Ready mix concrete 13% 3824.20
- Others 18%"
3824.90
9. It can be seen from the above that the "concrete mix", and "Ready mix concrete" get covered under Chapter No. 38, and it is not in dispute.
10. General exemption Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was issued by the Central Government by the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said Section 5A authorizes the Government to issue exemption from payment of duty by issuing a notification. The exemption Notification No. 4/97-C.E. reads as under :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts excisable goods specified in column (3) of the table below...."
It can be seen that the exemption granted vide above notification, by Government to the excisable goods, is in the public interest and that also after being satisfied that it is so. To our mind the exemption granted to "concrete mix" at serial No. 51, "manufactured at the site of construction for use in construction work at such site", should not be given a narrow meaning as to include only "Concrete Mix" and exclude from its ambit Ready Mix Concrete manufactured at site. It was the contention of learned D.R. that in this case also the concrete mix is not manufactured 10 E/898/2012 at Dam site, but away from the site and transported hence would not be eligible for exemption as it would become "Ready Mix Concrete". It is a known fact that the sites of dams are at places surrounded by the hills and there may not be any place near the "Dam Site" to erect a concrete mixing plant. The concrete mixing plant, by necessity has to be located at place within the vicinity of the Dam Site, which may depend upon the contours of the area where the Dam is being constructed. This itself would not exclude the concrete mix manufactured at this plant from exemption granted under Serial No. 51 of the Notification No. 4/97-C.E. We find strength in this conclusion from the wording of the entry at serial No. 51. The heading to Table to notification in column No. 2 talks about the "Chapter or heading No. or sub-heading No." that is sought to be exempted by the notification. In the case before us the entry at column No. 2 at serial No. 51 says only "38" i.e. it refers to only Chapter No. The said entry does not refer to any heading No. or Sub-heading No. To our mind the Central Government had every intention to exempt all kinds of "Concrete Mix" from payment of duty, which is very evident from the fact that, the said notification in respect of many items indicates heading No. and sub-heading Nos. specifically. If the law makers did not intend to exempt "Ready Mix Concrete" falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. "3824.20/3824.90" they would have categorically said so, by indicating in the serial No. 51 only the specific heading Nos. which are eligible for exemption. Since, the notification intends to cover all the "Concrete Mix manufactured at the site of construction for the use in construction work at such site", it would also cover the "Ready Mix Concrete" in its ambit of exemption.
11. In the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd., before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel conceded the issue. It is recorded by the Hon'ble High Court at Para 6 which reads as under :-
"At the hearing the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel specifically took a stand that Ready Mix Concrete is not leviable even if it is manufactured at the site of construction, but it is leviable only if such Ready Mix Concrete, which is manufactured in a place other than the place of construction for the one's own purpose or for its use somewhere 11 E/898/2012 else or by sale and by transportation of the same from Ready Mix Plant to such site of third parties or consumers as the case may be."
After recording the views of the Central Government Counsel, the Hon'ble High Court has disposed off the writ petition as under :-
"7. Though there is some inconsistency in Para-4 of the Notification issued by the Board, since the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had clarified that Ready Mix Concrete is exempted only if it is manufactured at site by the promoter or builder for use as the case may be for its own construction at the site of construction.
8. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel further represented that duty is leviable in respect of Ready Mix Concrete if it is manufactured in a Ready Mix unit installed for the purpose, supplied or transported through containers to sites of construction, which is different from the sites of mixing plant. In the light of the said stand taken by Mr. Veeraraghavan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, it is unnecessary to examine the contentions set out in the writ petition.
9. In the result, while recording the representation submitted by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their respective costs."
The abovesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court fortifies our view that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 4/97 is available to Ready Mix Concrete also provided it is "manufactured at the site of construction".
12. As we have held above, that the entry at serial No. 51 of Notification No. 4/97, exempts all "Concrete Mixes" which fall under Chapter 38, and as it is not disputed that the product of the appellant gets covered under Chapter 38, the reference is answered in favour of the appellants. We also allow the appeal since no other issue arises in this case.
13. The reference to the Larger Bench and appeal are disposed of in the above terms."
15. Applying the ratio of above judgment of Larger Bench, it can be seen that the product manufactured by the appellant is 12 E/898/2012 undoubtedly classificable under Chapter 84.13 which was covered by Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006, and eligible for benefit of reduced rate of duty. The Larger Bench decision's ratio in a similar situation will squarely apply in this case also."
4.3 In case of Simplex Electrical Engineering Pvt Ltd. [2010 (254) ELT 531 (T-Kol)] following was held:
"4. The contention of the appellant is that the benefit of the Notification has been allowed on the basis of Board's Circular and the Circular was merely to settle a classification dispute. The appellant while relying upon definition in Wikipedia INTERNET encyclopaedia, contended that even if centrifugal pumps can be powered by other prime-movers, the term, 'power-driven' exclusively meant those pumps that run on electric power. The benefit of the Notification is available to the manufacturers who manufacture power-driven pumps and I.C. Engines together. The imported goods were brought under cover of invoices issued by a trader and not by a manufacturer and that too, where P.D. pumps and diesel engines have been brought separately. They also contended that mere classification under Chapter Heading 84.13 does not necessarily follow that the same goods automatically qualify for the benefit of the Notification No. 10/06-C.E. The Board's Circular settled the classification dispute which was not relevant to the issue. The appellant contended that the benefit under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E. is to be given, if the pumps are driven exclusively by electric power. The benefit of the said Notification is not extendable to the manufacturer who does not manufacture pumps and I.C. Engines together and clears them from the same unit.
5. The Contention of the respondent is that the C.B.E.C. Circular No. 224/58/96-CX., dated 26-6-96 relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), clearly clarifies that pump i.e. I.C. engine may be treated as an integral part of power-driven water pump. This conclusively proves that the power-driven water pump is not necessarily required to be driven by electric power. It may also be driven by diesel engine. Contention of the respondent is that pump engines are manufactured separately by different manufacturers showing them complete pump-set.13
E/898/2012
6. I have considered the submissions and carefully verified the records of the case. I find that the respondent has declared the goods in the Bill of Entry as "Centri Water Pumpset comprising of D. Engineering R176RC4" which is not disputed by either side. Therefore, the contention that P.D. pumps and diesel engine have been brought separately, is contrary to the facts on record. The appellants' contention that the term, 'power-driven' exclusively meant those pumps that run on electric power, is not keeping in pace with the time. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 10/2006-C.E., while relying upon the Board's Circular dated 26-6-96. Paras 2 and 3 of the said Circular reads as under :
"2. The matter has been examined in depth. Board in its F.No. 151/13/92-CX4 (Pt.) (Circular No. 11/11/94, dated 2-2-1994) has held that electric motors or rotors or stators are components parts of P.D. Pumps. Following the same analogy, the prime mover, i.e. I.C. Engine may be treated as an integral part of P.D. Pump. The Board takes note of Note 3 of Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff which states that composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines adapted for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function. As the principal function of a pump set is that of the pump, the pump set is rightly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 84.13.
3. Hence, the Board is of the view that Power Driven Pump Sets are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.13 and if such Power Driven Pump Sets are primarily meant for handling water, the benefit of Notification No. 56/95, dated 16-3-1995 will be admissible to the whole pump set."
From the above, it is clear that the Board's Circular not only deals with classification but also underlines that I.C. Engine may be treated as an integral part of P.D. Pump. Moreover, diesel engine is an I.C. engine, is not in dispute. The Notification exempts power-driven pumps primarily designed for handling water, namely, centrifugal pumps (horizontal or vertical), deep tube-well 14 E/898/2012 turbine pumps, submersible pumps, axial flow and mixed flow vertical pumps."
4.4 Commissioner (Appeals) order as follows has upheld the same view:
a. Order in Appeal No KLH-EXCUS-000-APP-136-138-2015-16 dated 03.11.2015 b. Order in Appeal No KLH-EXCUS-000-APP-227-2015-16 dated 02.03.2016 c. Order in Appeal No KLH-EXCUS-000-APP-263-16-17 dated 27.02.2017 d. Order in Appeal No KLH-EXCUS-000-APP-140-2017-18 dated 01.06.2017 Appeals filed by the revenue against order at "a" and "b" have been dismissed as withdrawn in terms of litigation policy.
4.5 The decisions relied upon by the learned authorized representative do not advance the case of revenue. Following the above we do not find merits in the impugned order and set aside the same.
5.1 Appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open court) (Sanjiv Srivastava) Member (Technical) (Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial) tvu