Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Arthanari Loom Centre Textile Pvt Ltd vs Salem on 25 August, 2022
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI
Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 113 & 114/2014-ST dated 20.3.2014 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
M/s. Arthanari Loom Center (Textiles) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
5/127, Erumpalayam Main Road
P.O. Erumapalayam
Salem - 636 015.
Vs.
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent
No. 1, Foulks Compound, Anaimedu Salem - 636 001 APPEARANCE:
Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs. Anandalakshmi G. Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order Nos. 40312-40313 / 2022 Date of Hearing : 23.08.2022 Date of Decision: 25.08.2022 The issue involved in both these appeals being common, they were heard together and decided by this common order.
2. Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers and exporters of 100% cotton yarn dyed woven fabrics falling under CETH 52084130 of CETA, 1985. They were availing the CENVAT credit facility in respect of capital goods from 10.6.2010 onwards. The credit was availed and utilized to pay duty on export goods exported in terms of Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. On verification of the credit taken and utilized, it was observed 2 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 that on 10.6.2010, the appellant had taken credit at a single stroke of sum of Rs.20,45,725/- on imported capital goods which were mainly spares. The credit so availed was utilized only to pay duty of export clearances. This CENVAT credit was availed on capital goods which were received in the factory from April 2007 to June 2010. They then started using the credit availed on capital goods to pay duty on exported goods from the month of June 2010. For the period prior, i.e. from June 2007 to 9.10.2010, the appellant had opted for full duty exemption on all clearances (domestic clearance and export clearance) in terms of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. Originally for the period prior to 10.6.2010, the appellant had not taken any credit on capital goods or inputs. From 10.6.2010 they started taking credit on capital goods and used the credit to pay duty on finished goods. They had intimated the same to the department on 8.6.2010. According to department the credit availed on capital goods received in the factory prior to 10.6.2010 while the appellant was enjoying full duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 30/2004- CE dated 9.7.2004 was not eligible. Further, the appellant had not produced any certificate disclaiming the depreciation benefit on credit taken on capital goods which was required for the goods received prior to 31.3.2010 as accounts which could have been finalized for the financial years upto 31.3.2010.
3. The department took the view that the credit availed on capital goods is in contravention of Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit 3 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 Rules, 2004. Under this provision, credit cannot be availed on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. As the appellant was clearing the finished goods without payment of duty by availing the benefit under exemption in terms of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 and thus capital goods having been used for manufacture of exempted goods only, they are not eligible to the credit availed on such capital goods. It was thus observed that the total CENVAT Credit of Rs.20,45,725/- availed on capital goods for the period June 2010 was contrary to the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Hence Show Cause Notice dated 5.7.2011 was issued demanding recovery of the irregular CENVAT credit availed by them along with interest and also proposing to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty.
4. Subsequently on 30.11.2011, the appellant availed credit of Rs.11,57,158/- on capital goods received during the period from 12.3.2007 to 29.4.2010. During the said period, the appellant had opted for availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty for all clearances in terms of Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. It was observed by department that the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods by the appellant was ineligible as the goods manufactured using the capital goods were exported. Show Cause Notice dated 7.6.2012 was issued proposing to recover the irregularly availed CENVAT credit along with interest and also for 4 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty.
5. Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide common order, which is impugned herein, upheld the confirmation of demand, interest and penalty. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel Shri M.N. Bharathi appeared for the appellant. He explained that the appellant imported capital goods, spares and accessories of capital goods on various dates for use in the manufacture and export of finished products.
7. Initially, the appellants were availing the benefit of full exemption in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 for the period from June 2007 till June 2010. The appellant made domestic clearances as well as export clearance without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 30/2004. As per this notification, the goods cleared are exempted from payment of duty even though credit has been availed on capital goods. To be more clear, he stressed that the notification does not bar availment of credit of duty paid on capital goods. He adverted to the Corrigendum to Notification No. 30/2004-CE by MF (DR) Corrigendum F. No. 334/3/2004-TRU (Pt. I) dated 9.7.2004 to submit that on the very same date the corrigendum was issued to the notification wherein it was clarified that the notification bars availment of credit on inputs and not capital goods. Therefore, for the period prior to 10.6.2010, the appellant 5 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 had been availing the benefit of this notification and clearing goods without payment of duty. However, prior to 10.6.2010, they had not availed any credit on inputs or capital goods. On 10.6.2010, they availed the credit on capital goods which had been received in the factory prior to 10.6.2010 also. The department has proposed to disallow the credit availed by the appellant prior to 10.6.2010 alleging that the capital goods have been used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods and the same is hit by Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He adverted to the said provision which reads as under:-
"(4) No CENVAT credit shall be allowed on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing exempted services for a period of two years from the date of commencement of the commercial production or provision of services, as the case may be, other than the final products or output services which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made or services provided in a financial year:
Provided that where capital goods are received after the date of commencement of commercial production or provision of services, as the case may be, the period of two years shall be computed from the date of installation of such capital goods."
8. The learned counsel submitted that the CENVAT Credit Rules during the disputed period did not prescribe any time limit for availing the credit. The notification allows availing credit on capital goods even though the finished products are exempted from payment of duty. The said Rule 6(4) has to be read harmoniously with the notification. When the notification does not bar availing credit on capital goods, which has been specifically clarified by issuing the Corrigendum, it cannot be said that the 6 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 credit availed is ineligible. The very same issue as to whether credit is available on capital goods when the goods are cleared by availing benefit of exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE was analyzed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai Vs. Eastman Spinning Mills P. Ltd. reported in 2011 (271) ELT 256 (Tri. Chennai). It was held by the Tribunal that Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 bars availment of credit on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods whereas Notification No. 30/2004 is only an optional exemption enabling a manufacturer to clear the goods either without payment of duty or on payment of duty. For this reason, it cannot be said that the capital goods are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The said decision was followed in the case of Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ludhiana reported in 2012 (284) ELT 240 (Tri. Del.).
9. It is also alleged by the department that the goods which are exported have to be treated as exempted goods. It is submitted that this view taken by the authorities below is highly erroneous as the goods which are exported are not exempted goods. The provisions of Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 will not apply to goods which are exported. This is clear from Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
10. Subsequently from 10.6.2010, the appellants started availing the benefits of both the Notification 29/2004 and 30/2004. He submitted that the goods cleared by the appellant 7 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 during the impugned period where of two types. The first type of clearance was for home consumption by availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. The second type of clearances are export clearances. This cannot be considered as exempted goods. To support this argument, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of India Poly Fibres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1999 (111) ELT 48 as well as S.H. Kelkar & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 1998 (102) ELT 418 (Tri.).
11. The learned counsel submitted that the allegation raised against the appellant is that, for the period prior to 10.6.2010, the appellant is not eligible for the credit as they were availing the benefit of exemption Notification 30/2004-CE and clearing the goods domestically without payment of duty and also making export clearances. After 10.6.2010, it is alleged that the appellant though was paying concessional rate of duty for domestic clearance they were also making export clearances. The clearances made prior to 10.6.2010 being without payment of duty and also the clearances made after 10.6.2010 being partly export clearance have to be considered as exempted clearances. He argued that this view taken by the authorities below is highly erroneous. The very same issue was decided by the Tribunal in the case of S.N. Modani Vs. CCE reported in 2018 (364) ELT 973. The Tribunal held that the credit on capital goods is legal and 8 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 proper in terms of rule 6(6)(v) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He prayed that the appeals may be allowed.
12. The learned AR Ms. Anandalakshmi appeared for the department. She submitted that from June 2010 onwards, the appellant had opted for full duty exemption on all clearances both export as well as domestic clearances in terms of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. Prior to 10.6.2010, the appellant did not avail any credit on inputs or capital goods. Subsequently from 10.6.2010, the appellant started taking credit on capital goods and used it to pay duty on finished goods. They availed the credit on capital goods received in the factory prior to 10.6.2010 even though they were availing full duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 30/2004. For the period prior to 10.6.2010, the appellant was not paying duty either for exempted goods for home consumption or goods exported. They were availing the benefit of both notifications 30/2004 and 29/2004 which cannot be allowed.
13. The appellant filed rebate claims for the period January 2006 to June 2007 which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. They filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed rebate claims. Against such order, the department filed revision application before Revisionary Authority, Government of India. The appeal filed by the department was allowed whereby the Revisionary Authority held that at the time of receipt of capital goods in the factory, final product was cleared without payment 9 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 of duty by claiming full exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The capital goods having been used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods, the credit is not eligible.
14. She relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Surya Roshni reported in 2003 (155) ELT 481 and argued that the eligibility of credit on capital goods has to be determined at the time of receipt of the goods into the factory. The said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (158) ELT A273 (SC). She submitted that since the finished goods were cleared by the appellant for the period prior to 10.6.2010 without paying duty, the credit availed by the appellant on capital goods is not admissible. It is also submitted that the appellant has filed a writ petition against the order passed by the Revisionary Authority before the Hon'ble High Court and the same is pending. She requested to remand the matter to the original authority with direction to await for the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.
15. Heard both sides.
16. The allegation of the department is that the credit availed on capital goods is not eligible prior to 10.6.2010 for the reason that the appellant has been clearing the goods both for home consumption as well as for export without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. The said notification exempts payment of duty when the goods are cleared domestically. The Corrigendum issued to the notification makes 10 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 it clear that the exemption is available even if credit is availed on capital goods. In other words, this notification bars availment of credit on inputs only.
17. Rule 6(4) prohibits the availment of credit on capital goods which are exclusively used for the manufacture of exempted goods. The question then arises whether the availment of benefit of Notification 30/2004 would give rise to a situation that the capital goods are used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods. The said provision i.e. Rule 6(4) has already been noticed above. It is to be noted that a manufacturer is given an option to avail the benefit of Notification 30/2004. It does not make the goods completely exempted from payment of duty. If the manufacturer avails credit on inputs, then he cannot avail the benefit of the exemption provided under Notification No. 30/2004. Rule 6(4) bars the availment of credit on capital goods which are used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods. As per Rule 2(d) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 'exempted goods' means "excisable goods which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty". Thus, the goods cleared under Notification No.30/2004 without payment of duty is optional payment without duty and it cannot be said that these fall within the definition of 'exempted goods'. The said issue was discussed by the Tribunal in the case of Eastman Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (supra) which reads as under:-
11
Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 "In this case, a demand of Rs. 1,99,749/- representing wrongly availed CENVAT credit on capital goods used in the manufacture of exempted cotton yarn during the period 9-7-2004 to 31-3-2007, was confirmed together with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority, whose order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals); hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. I have heard both sides. Initially, the proviso to Notification No. 30/2004, dated 9-7-2004 by which goods falling under specified sub-
headings of Chapter 52 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985 (the assessee is a manufacturer of cotton yarn falling under one of the specified sub-headings of Chapter 52), provided that nothing contained in the notification would apply to the goods in respect of which credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. On the same date of the issue of the above notification viz 9-7-2004 a corrigendum was issued so as to bar the availment of the exemption under the notification by a manufacturer availing input credit only. Therefore, there was no bar to the availment of exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 by a manufacturer availing capital goods credit. This apart, Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 bars availment of credit on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods, while in the present case, the duty on cotton yarn is an optional one enabling a manufacturer to clear the goods either without payment of duty or on payment of duty. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that capital goods are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The assessees paid duty subsequently, namely, during the month of August, 2008 on cotton yarn in terms of Notification No. 29/2004- C.E., dated 9-7-2004 and, therefore, the availment and utilisation of credit for paying duty on capital goods is in accordance with law. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal." From the above, it can be seen that the denial of CENVAT credit alleging that the goods cleared prior to 10.6.2010 are exempted goods and therefore hit by Rule 6(4)is without any basis.
18. Later, the appellant had availed the benefit of Notification No. 29/2004. As per this Notification, the domestic clearances get the benefit of concessional rate of duty. The department has denied the credit availed on capital goods for the period after 10.6.2010 alleging that though the appellant has paid duty on domestic clearance but the capital goods have also been used for manufacture of exported goods. Thus, they have considered the 12 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 'exported goods' as 'exempted goods'. This is legally wrong. The definition of exempted goods does not take in goods which are exported. The issue whether exported goods can be considered as exempted goods was analyzed by the Tribunal in various cases. In the erstwhile MODVAT Rule, the similar Rule 57C disallows credit availed on capital goods when they are exclusively used for manufacture of exempted goods. The issue as to whether the exported goods can be considered as exempted goods was discussed by the Tribunal in the case of India Poly Fibres Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion is reproduced below:-
"2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are manufacturers of polyester staple fibres. They filed their declaration under Rule 57G and availed credit of duty paid on the inputs. It was alleged that the appellants cleared polyester stable fibres weighing 20,017.80 Kgs. without payment of duty for export. Since the polyester staple fibres so cleared were not exported directly by the appellants. It was alleged that they are not entitled to avail credit of duty under Modvat scheme. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 1,46,930/- taken credit by the appellants wrongly should not be recovered under Rule 57-I read with Section 11A. In reply to the SCN, the appellants submitted that removal of the goods without payment of duty is not exempted; that utilisation of credit is in order; that the bar under Rule 57C does not cover removal of the goods without payment of duty under Rule 191B; that in the facts of the case neither Rule 57C nor Rule 57G can be invoked to deny Modvat credit; that Rule 57-I is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The appellants contended that in view of the notification issued under Rule 191B specified excisable goods for the manufacture of articles in bond for export the said articles can be removed without payment of duty; that the notification also specifies a condition that the manufacturer of the articles for export enter into a bond to the extent of twice the amount of excise duty payable on the excisable goods obtained without payment of duty; that this clearly shows that the excisable goods which are for the manufacture of articles in bond are not exempted; that the notification issued under Rule 191B simply permits the goods to be removed or supplied without payment of duty to the manufacturer of articles which are to be exported under bond. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held as indicated above.
3. Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant submits that similar issue case came up before the Tribunal earlier also and the Tribunal [Order 13 Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 No. A/352/97-NB, dated 11-2-1997 following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Limited - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 595] held that the bar of Rule 57C is not attracted in the present case where the final products were exported under bond under Rule 191B. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. We further note that this decision of the Tribunal has been subsequently followed in the case of J.K. Synthetics Limited [1996 (87) E.L.T. 389].
4. Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. JDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the authorities below had considered these aspects in detail and had come to a conclusion in regard to denial of Modvat credit under Rules 57C and 57G and had correctly done so.
5. We have heard rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made and the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants, we find that the case is fully covered by the decision cited and relied upon by the appellants. Following the ratio of the decision as cited above, we hold that the bar of Rule 57C is not attracted in the present case where the final products were exported under bond. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible in accordance with law."
19. This apart, the issue as to whether credit on capital goods can be availed when the goods have been cleared availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 was discussed by the Tribunal in the case of S.N. Modani (supra). The issue that was considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal is the same as in the present case. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted as follows :-
(i) The benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 has been availed by the appellants in respect of domestic clearances. Exports made up to 18-2-2014 were made by under the Letter of Undertaking, in lieu of bond. Exports made subsequent to this date were made by mentioning the Notification No. 30/2004, without executing LUT. He submitted that the goods cleared for export cannot be considered as exempted goods, since in any export consignment only the goods are exported and not the taxes. The Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit [Rules], 2004 provides that Rule 6(4) will not be applicable in the case of export under bond. The same dispension is required to be given for the goods exported by the appellant.14
Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014
(ii) To support his contention he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2009 (235) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.). He further submitted that above judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Drish Shoes Ltd. - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 417 (H.P.).
(iii) He also submitted that the capital goods in question, during the period under dispute has also been used for making goods which were exported under claim of rebate.
4. Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the goods remained fully exempted in terms of Notification No. 30/2004 and hence, the capital goods used for manufacture of such goods cannot be allowed Cenvat credit since these are being used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods.
5. We have heard both sides and considered the appeal record. The capital goods in question, for which Cenvat credit is being denied by the Revenue, has been used both for manufacture and clearance of goods domestically as well as for export. For domestic clearances, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004, since the appellant has not claimed Cenvat credit on inputs/input services. Using the same capital goods, goods have also been manufactured and cleared for export. The crux of the present dispute is whether the goods which are so cleared for export are to be considered as exempted goods or dutiable goods. If the goods are considered as exempted goods, then the appellant incurs the mischief of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which mandates that no Cenvat credit can be allowed for capital goods used exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods.
6. The Cenvat Credit Rule 6(4) providing that Cenvat credit on capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods shall not be allowed, has been made inapplicable in respect of circumstances outlined in Rule 6(6). One of the circumstances is given in Rule 6(6)(v) "clearance for export under bond in terms of the provision of Central Excise Rules, 2002". It is pertinent to note that Rule 6(6) has made Rule 6(4) inapplicable when "excisable goods"
are removed without payment of duty for export under bond. In the facts of the present case, part of the export has taken place under bond (letter of undertaking). Certain other consignments have been exported without executing LUT claiming the goods as exempted under Notification No. 30/2004. In any case, it is settled principle of law that only the goods are exported from the country and not the taxes. The Central Excise law provides for clearance of goods for export either under bond in which case the terminal excise duty is not paid at the time of clearance from the factory but in the terms of the bond the manufacturer is obligated to export the goods and get the bond closed. The other option available to manufacturer is to pay the said duty and export the goods and get the excise duty so paid rebated. In any case there is no doubt that the goods manufactured have been partially exported and partially cleared to the domestic tariff area. We are of the view that the benefit of Rule 6(6)(v) is required to be extended to the appellant since the goods have in fact been exported. Consequently, we are of the view that the appellant will be entitled to the Cenvat credit on the capital goods used partially for export even though domestic clearances are exempted.15
Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014
7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed."
20. The issue as to whether the benefit of both the notifications can be availed and the credit on capital goods is eligible was considered by the Tribunal in the case of S.T. Cottex Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2010 (261) ELT 807 (Tri. Del.). The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as reported in 2011 (268) ELT 318 whereby the appeal filed by Revenue was rejected. The identical issue was decided by the Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) by applying the ratio laid in their own case in Appeal No. E/291/2009-DB. Final Order No. 60090/2018 dated 15.2.2018.
21. The learned AR has submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Revisionary Authority is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. The said writ petition is against the order of the Revisionary Authority in regard to rebate claims. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider any order passed in regard to rebate claims. However, the jurisdiction for deciding the eligibility of credit as well as application of CENVAT Credit Rules lies within the Tribunal. This apart, the learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the writ petition filed by them before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of the Revisionary Authority was dismissed on account of non- prosecution on 11.3.2020. Due to COVID pandemic, the appellant was not aware of the dismissal for non-prosecution. 16
Excise Appeal Nos.41201 & 41202 of 2014 Subsequently, the appellant is in the process of filing restoration application. In the present case, the demand has been issued for recovery of credit wrongly availed on capital goods and is fully within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
22. From the discussions made above as well as relying on the decisions cited, I am of the considered view that the disallowance of CENVAT credit on capital goods is without legal or factual basis. The impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs if any.
(Pronounced in open court on 25.8.2022) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) Member (Judicial) Rex