Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sharp Menthol India Ltd vs C.C.E Delhi-I on 29 October, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II Appeal No. E/1492 & 1946/2008-EX(DB) [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 18/2008 dated 15.05.2008 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, New Delhi]. For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. .Appellants Vs. C.C.E Delhi-I .Respondent
C.C.E Delhi-I .Appellants Vs. M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. .Respondent Appearance: Shri C. Harishankaran & Shri S. Sunil, Advocate for M/s. Sharp Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the Revenue CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement:29.10.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. 53285-53286/2015-EX(DB) Per Ashok Jindal:
M/s. Sharp Menthol India Ltd. ( in short Sharp) has filed an appeal against the following order-in-original dated 15.5.2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
i) I order confiscation of finished excisable goods of 2486 drums containing 447840 kgs. Valued at Rs.3,75,53,400/- and as detailed at Sl. No. 1 & 5 of the table appended to Para 17 of Show cause notice under Rule 25 (i) of central Excise Rules 2002. However, I impose redemption fine of Rs. 75,00,222/- in lieu of confiscation.
ii) I confirm the demand of Rs. 60,08,544/- and education cess of Rs. 1,20,171/- under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
iii) I order recovery of interest at the appropriate rate in terms of section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944.
iv) I impose penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- on the notice under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules.
2. The Revenue has also filed an appeal against the impugned order for release of menthal, piperita oil, spearmint oil, etc.
3. As both the appeals are arising from a common order, therefore, both the appeals are taken together for disposal and are being disposed of by a common order.
4. The facts of the case are that M/s. Sharp is engaged in manufacture and export of menthol crystals and essential oils. The basic raw material used in the manufacture of goods is menthol, demetholised oil, spearmint oil, mentha oil and menth piperita oil. The crude mentha oil has been processed to manufacture menthol and dementholised oil by chilling and Centrifuge Processes. These raw materials were fractionated to remove the low boiling fractions i.e. Terpene / Residue for obtaining the enriched material.
5. DGCEI gathered intelligence that the manufacturer of menthol located in Jammu & Kathua are misusing the benefit of area based exemption under notification no. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. Whereas these units are actually manufacturing menthol flakes i.e. (terpene /menthol / DMO) only in small quantities but were showing their production in huge quantities. Thereafter, only invoices showing payment of excise duty were issued without actually manufacturing and clearing the goods. For the clearances, movements of trucks were being manipulated to show many trips thereof across the J & K border. The buyers of these Menthol etc. shown in most of the invoices were the companies of Sharp Group only. It was also gathered that M/s. Sharp Group actually procured non duty paid inputs (Mentha Piperita oil, Spearmint oil, Basil Oil etc.) from tiny and small manufacturers / traders of Lucknow / Barabanki / Bareilly / Sambhal / Badaun / Chandausi / Kashipur area at their factories in Delhi & Bhiwadi while the same were being shown in their records received from J & K Unit. They are claiming rebate of duty on export of goods manufactured from these non-duty paid inputs which were being received by them directly from these tiny manufactures / traders located in UP. While in records, inputs like menthol, DMO, etc., were shown to have been procured from J & K Unit. In this background, a search were conducted by DGCEI at the factory premises in Jammu & Kathua, traders / suppliers of unprocessed menthol oil and piperita oil in UP, transporters in Jammu, Delhi and UP unit, premises of Sharp Menthol India Ltd. and Sharp Aromatics India (P) ltd. Bhiwadi and their registered offices as well as residential premises of the officials of Sharp group. On investigation, it revealed that a huge quantity of unaccounted menthol and its derivatives were kept in the godown of M/s. Sharp at Khasra No. 644-645, opposite G.M. Public School, Jeewan Park Extension, Siraspur Village, Delhi. The said premises were searched on 18.07.2006. At the time of search, Shri Kamal Kumar, Head Quality Control and Shri Balwant Singh Rana, accountant of M/s. Sharp were present. Two godowns marked 1 and 16 were containing mentha piperita oil in steel drums numbering 1938, each said to be containing 180 kgs of Mentha piperita oil, except one leaking drum. There was one more godown marked no. 2 in the same premises. The stock taking was conducted and it revealed that 1629 filled steel drums, contents of which could not be ascertained and no documentary evidences of all three godowns could be produced, therefore, goods lying in godowns were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act. The said godown were sealed and the panchnama was drawn. The statement of Shri Kamal Kumar and Shri Balwant Singh Rana were recorded. Shri Ram Ratan Gupta, Chartered Accountant and Shri Dayashankar Yadav, chowkidar of Godown no. 1,2, and 16 were recorded. On 24.07.2006, 19 representative samples were drawn as per the chart below in the presence of Dr. Kamal Kumar and Shri Balwant Singh Rana. These Samples were sent to IIT Delhi for examination and samples were tested. Summary of test report is as follows:
6. As per the report of IIT Delhi, samples marked as 1B and 1C were found mixtures mainly consisting of B-pipenane and speinene. Samples marked 1A, 16D and 16E seems to represent unprocessed menthe piperita oil. Samples marked 2F & 2G found to be natural spearmint oil samples marked 2F to 2S found to be terpenoidal rejects usually encountered in Menthol industry. These terpenes are normally observed in residues in procedures involving menthol crystalisation from natural raw materials. On the basis of these investigations, a show cause notice was issued alleging that the claim of goods contained in 1938 drums seized from godown no. 1 & 16 were mentha piperita oil is incorrect as the report of IIT Delhi confirms that 907 drums were only residue and not appears to be mentha piperita oil as claimed by M/s. Sharp. The test report also confirms that representative samples marked as 2-F to 2-S were not tallied with the claim of M/s. Sharp in as much as samples marked as 2-I, 2-J and 2-L containing 98% of L menthol, 25.79% of L Menthol and 26.33 % of L Menthol respectively. Whereas M/s. Sharp has claimed the same as residue / terpene. The rest of the goods contained in 1302 drums were also not tallied with the claim of M/s. Sharp as terpene. As IIT report suggested that these goods were nothing but terpenoidal rejects which were generally left after fractionation of terpene from residue. Therefore, the said goods have been derived upon fractionation of crude mentha oil which is manufactured in the factory of M/s. Sharp. In these set of facts Central Excise duty was proposed to be demanded on these goods along with interest and proposal for imposing penalty was also made. The matter was adjudicated. The Adjudicating authority dropped the demand with regard to Sample No.1A, 16D & 16E found to be containing menthol piperita oil as declared and also dropped the demand for sample No. 2-F and 2-G found to be spearmint oil as declared on the ground that these are being inputs procured by M/s. Sharp from UP traders for processing their final product for export. For rest of the goods, the demand of duty were confirmed along with interest and penalty on M/s. Sharp was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, M/s. Sharp has filed appeal for confirming duty demand along with interest and imposing penalty and Revenue is in appeal against the order dropping demand for samples no. 1A, 16D, 16F, 2F and 2G.
7. Shri C. Harishankar Sr. Advocate, Ld. Counsel for M/s. Sharp appeared before us and submitted that the manner in which the department has proceeded to segregate the contents of the drum cannot be countenanced legally and logically. To take example of 1360 drums in godown 1, the visiting team segregated drums into 3 groups, 453, 453 and 454 drums and tested one drum in each group on the totally incomprehensible premises that said one drum represent all the drums (453 or 454 of the group). Same treatment was given to the 578 drums in godown 16 by dividing into 2 groups of 289 drums each and, the 462 drums in godown 2 were divided in 5 groups of 92, 92, 93, 93 and 93 drums each and 1127 drums in godown no.2 were divided into 7 groups of 159, 159, 159, 160, 160, 160 and 160 drums each and in each case one drum from the group was tested and assumed to be representative of that group. The said method is totally illogical and in fact practically obsolete. Therefore, the tax liability cannot be fastened by resorting to such random sampling as contents of any one group of 453 cannot be basis for presuming that remaining 452 to contain the same item for raising tax demand. Quite possibly the testing of one drum could afford a legitimate basis to determine whether the remaining drums were need to be tested or not. If however, testing of one drum give rise to the suspicion of remaining 452 drums the tax authorities are duty bound to test remaining 452 drums and cannot presume that contents of one drum determine the contents of remaining 452 drums. Therefore, the tax demand has been raised on assumption and presumption which is not permissible.
7.1 He further submits that random sampling permits such segregation provided that there is something to distinguish three groups from one another. But it is not permissible to divide in 3 groups without any difference among the groups, select 1 drum from each group, and assume that drum represents the said group. Such an approach defies logic, as it would amount, in fact to picking three drums out of 1360, testing them and then extrapolating the test report, randomly, to 453, 453 and 454 drums without testing a single other drum. It is reiterated that such an approach would not only be illegal and illogical but would border on the ridiculous. Therefore, he submits that the proceedings are not sustainable for that only reason ab initio and in toto in the light of the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Mithun and Co. 2009 (233) ELT 233 (Kerala).
7.2 He further submits that the show cause notice alleged that M/s. Sharp has mis-declared the contents of drums at Sl. No. 8-19 in the table above by declaring them to terpene or residue whereas the drum at sl. No. 8, 11, 13 to 19 were found to be contained terponoidal rejects and drums at Sl. No. 9, 10 & 12 were found to contain material containing L-menthol in various percentages. However, the show cause notice while pointing out this difference in terminology and nomenclature does not explain how in fact the items were different. There is nothing in show cause notice which explains how terponoidal rejects could not come within the ambit of the expression residue or even terpene or for that matter, why terpene or residue could not contain L-menthol. No such clarification was sought from the IIT Delhi, neither was any expert opinion sought in this regard. Therefore, onus of proof of such mis-declaration on the part of M/s. Sharp as alleged is squarely on the Revenue who has failed to discharge the same. The allegation of the Department that M/s. Sharp has mis-declared the contents of drum Sl. No. 8-19 is not supported by any sufficient or credible material. The copies of the test report were made available to M/s. Sharp only at the time of issuance of show cause notice and no retest was sought and no cross examination of Chemist of IIT Delhi was afforded to M/s. Sharp and the request in this respect has not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. He further submits that M/s. Sharp has contended that drums mentioned at Sl. No. 2 and 3 of the table above is menthe piperita oil is purchased from traders in UP against H Form of export but the revenue alleges that said drums did not contain mentha piperita oil but contains mixture of Beta pinene and Sebenetol which was in nature of terpene / residue, which has been manufactured by M/s. Sharp and clandestinely removed to the godown for onward supplies to customers. In this regard, he submits that M/s. Sharp has approached to Honble High Court in Writ Petition (C No. 5904/2007) for permission to process the 1938 drums in godown no. 1 & 16 to make them export worthy. The Honble High Court vide its order dated 14.08.2007 granted permission to M/.s Sharp to distill said mentha piperita oil in its factory under supervision of responsible Custom Officer. The said order reveals that the Counsel appearing for the Revenue never disputed the fact that goods in these 1938 drums is mentha piperita oil. In fact, mentha piperita oil in 1938 drums was distilled and subsequently exported as per the export documents. Bank realization cheque also evidence such export which were submitted to the adjudicating authority but no findings on this submission have been given by the Adjudicating Authority. In fact the adjudicating authority has confused the issue.
7.3 He further submits that both M/s. Sharp as well as Revenue have admitted the fact that the drums mentioned Sl. No. 8-19 were manufactured in M/s. Sharps factory. There is no dispute on this. But it is the case of the Revenue that the said goods have been clandestinely removed by M/s. Sharp to its godown for onward supply to its end users. The said allegation was replied by M/s. Sharp that the goods were terpene / residue produced in 1998 much before M/s. Sharp had obtained central excise registration. Consequent to a fire in their factory in 1998, it has stored the said goods in its godown in 1999 having no place to store them in the gutted factory. It is also contended by M/s. Sharp that since then they have been lying in their godown as the said stock is not intended for sale. But the adjudicating authority has rejected the contention of M/s. Sharp on the ground that M/s. Sharp has shifted its stand in as much as it is initially contended that said goods were mentha piperita oil and spearmint oil and there was no evidence of removal of the goods in the year 1999 prior to obtaining Central excise registration by M/s. Sharp. These findings of the Adjudicating authority are without merits, as M/s. Sharp has never contended it at any point of time that goods at Sl. No. 8-19 were mentha piperita oil or spearmint oil. So there is no shift in stand. Further, the onus is on the Revenue to prove clandestine removal. The said onus has not been discharged in this case in the light of the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Flevel International in Central Excise Appeal in Civil No. 6/2003 dated 17.09.2015. In the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority refers to un-retracted statements to support the case of revenue without identifying said statement or the makers thereof. In fact, none of the statement is inculcatory statement. So therefore, the question of retraction of the same does not arise.
7.4 He further submitted that without prejudice to the above, the entire demand is vitiated as the value of seized goods, on the basis whereof alleged duty has been quantified have been calculated on the basis of the value of identical products manufactured by other manufacturing unit of menthol and its derivatives. The identity of such other manufacturing unit or the source of the value relied upon is not revealed in the show cause notice or in the impugned order. Therefore, demand on these grounds is also not sustainable.
7.5 With regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of Sl. No. 1A, 16D, 16E, 2F & 2G the ground taken by the Revenue is that as per the statement of persons from M/s. Vishal Chemicals and M/s. Krishan Flavour that these goods have not been purchased from them. In the reply to the show cause notice, M/s. Sharp has submitted that these goods have been purchased from M/s. Sona chemicals and their ledger account was produced and on relying on these evidences the adjudicating authority has correctly arrived at the decision that these are the inputs produced by M/s. Sharp and are found to be as declared. Therefore, he has rightly dropped the demand on these goods.
7.6 In these terms, he submits that the appeal filed by M/s. Sharp is to be allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed.
8. On the other hand, Ld. AR in support of the appeal of the Revenue submits that goods mentioned at Sl. No. 1,4,5, 6 & 7 are the goods intended to be used by M/s. Sharp in their manufacturing activity and received clandestinely and also removed clandestinely from their factory to their undeclared godown. Therefore, the adjudicating authority committed an error by dropping the demand against M/s. Sharp. Therefore, impugned order qua dropping demand against M/s. Sharp is to be set aside.
9. With regard to the demands confirmed by the Adjudicating authority the Ld. AR submits that the goods were found to be mis-declared by the Adjudicating Authority after elaborate examination of the IIT Delhi which is an independent body and cannot be doubted. Moreover, these goods were found clandestinely removed by M/s. Sharp from their factory to undisclosed godown. Therefore, as Revenue has been able to prove their case that manufactured goods have been cleared clandestinely by M/s. Sharp to their undisclosed godown without payment of duty, therefore M/s. Sharp is liable to pay duty.
10. In these circumstances, he submits that adjudicating authority has rightly demanded duty and held liable for confiscation the goods. Interest and penalty is rightly been imposed. For the rest of the part of the order he reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Therefore, he submits that the Revenues appeal be allowed and M/s. Sharps appeal be dismissed.
11. Heard the parties. Noted the submission.
12. After hearing both the sides, we frame the following issues:
a) Whether the method adopted for taking samples from the godown No. 1, 16 & 2 is correct or not.
b) Whether the ld. Commissioner was correct in holding that the goods mentioned as Sample No. 1A, 16D, 16E, 2F & 2G are input and have been procured by the appellant from the traders for further processing the same or not ?
If not, then the liability of goods for confiscation and the consequences thereof.
c) Whether the Ld. Commissioner is correct to demand duty on the goods contained in samples in Sl. No. 1B, 1C & 2H to 2S helding that goods are found to be mis-declared by the M/s. Sharp . Consequently, these goods are liable for confiscation and consequence thereof.
d) Whether the goods mentioned at Sl. No. 2H-2S are clandestinely removed by the appellant and consequently are liable to pay duty thereon and consequence thereof.
13. We deal the issues as under:-
Issue No. a)
a) To deal with the issue of method adopted for taking samples we find that in godown no. 1 - 1360 drums were stored without any identification mark. In godown no. 16 - 578 drums were stored and no proper sign was marked for the same. Further, in godown no. 2 -50,462,1117 drums were stored in three lots and M/s. Sharp has shown a lot of 50 drums as spearmint oil, the lot of 462 drums as residue and a lot of 1117 drums as terpene. But, except this, there is no other identification mark to divide the drums into separate groups.
13.1) We find that in this case, the samples were drawn on random basis and groups were made by the inspecting team without identifying any plausible reason to decide into different groups and the samples were drawn from one drum of the said group. The method of segregating the sample is totally illogical as tax liability cannot be fastened on the basis of random sampling. Moreover, if the goods in one drum of the said group is not found to be as declared then it is the duty of the investigating team to draw another sample from the another drums of the same group from the remaining drums to find out the correctness of the declaration of the goods. That method was not adopted. Therefore, the contents of one drum cannot be the basis for a group to determine the contents of the goods of the said group. If one drum could have been taken from each godown to determine the contents of the goods stored in the said godown, it might have some logic but without identifying method of segregation of the drums into different group is only on the basis of assumption and presumption. The tax liability cannot be fastened on the basis of assumption and presumption. We also note that in the case of Mithu & Co. (Supra) the Honble High Court observed as under:
Yet another complaint that is raised by the petitioner is regarding the method of sampling followed by the respondents. As already noticed, petitioner has a case that out of the 7,000 bags that was imported, the samples were drawn only one or two bags and therefore, the same are not representative samples. This grievance appears to have some substance. There is nothing in record to show that representatives samples were drawn. 13.2) Therefore, we answer the question in favour of M/s. Sharp to hold that the segregation of drums into different groups is totally illogical and allegation of mis declaration stands disproved. Accordingly on the ground of mis declaration duty cannot be demanded from M/s. Sharp.
13.3) Therefore, we hold that the demands on the ground of mis-declaration is not sustainable as the method of drawing the samples is not correct.
Issue No. b)
14. We find that the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand against M/s. Sharp on the basis of test report of IIT Delhi for the goods contained in group of sample No. 1A, 16D, 16E, 2F & 2G on the ground that these are inputs procured by M/s. Sharp and found to be as declared. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly held that these are mentha piperita oil which are the input and on inputs duty cannot be demanded from M/s. Sharp as duty is to be demanded on manufactured goods. The case of the Revenue is that as per the statement of M/s. Vishal Chemicals and M/s. Krishna Flavour these goods have not been purchased from them by M/s. Sharp but the contention of M/s. Sharp is that these goods have been purchased from M/s. Shona Chemicals and ledger account were produced during adjudication and after verifying of these documents the adjudicating authority has found that these are inputs. In these circumstances, the grounds taken by the Revenue deserves no merits. In these circumstances we hold that adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand against M/s. Sharp on the drums of marking samples 1A, 16D, 16E, 2F & 2G. With these terms, we hold that the appeal filed by Revenue deserves no merits, hence the same is dismissed.
Issue No.c)
15. We find that the Adjudicating authority with regard to sample No. 1B & 1C has held that these goods are mixture mainly consisting B Pinene & Sabinene and these are manufactured goods. Therefore, duty is to be demanded. In this regard, the contention of M/s. Sharp is that these goods were purchased from traders of UP against H Form for export. M/s. Sharp has also approached to Honble High Court of Delhi in writ petition No. (C.No. 5904/2007) for permission to process to make them export worthy and the Honble High Court vide order dated 14.08.2007 granted permission to M/s. Sharp to distill the said goods in their factory under the supervision of responsible Central Excise officer and the said goods after distillation were exported. The BRCs were also produced to show the evidence of realization of payment against such exports. These facts are not disputed by the revenue. Moreover, before the Hoble High Court also the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has not disputed the fact that the goods mentioned at sample No. 1B & 1C are mentha piperita oil as it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue before the Honble High Court that the goods in question were mentha piperita oil. Therefore, we hold that the goods contained in drums represented at Sample No. 1B & 1C are mentha piperita oil which has been distilled and exported. Therefore, no duty is payable by M/s. Sharp. Consequently, the demand of duty on the said goods is set aside.
15.1 We, further, find that with regard to the goods contained in samples mentioned as 2H to 2S there is a mis-declaration alleged by the Revenue that M/s. Sharp has mis declared the goods. We find that M/s. Sharp has declared residue / terpene and as per the report of IIT, these goods they were found rejects. The Adjudicating authority failed to answer the questions what is the difference between residue and reject and have not analyzed the same. In these circumstances, we hold that charge of mis declaration is not sustainable. Consequently, allegation of mis declaration of goods is set aside.
Issue No.d)
16. The last issue to be dealt is whether M/s. Sharp has clandestinely removed the goods contained in the drums representing samples 2H-2S or not.
16.1 It is an admitted fact that during the course of investigation, these goods were found to be processed goods and on processed goods, the assessee is required to pay duty. The claim of M/s. Sharp is that these are waste / residue and having no value and the Adjudicating authority has adopted the method of valuation to derive the assessable value as per the value of similar goods without identifying from where he have taken the value of similar goods and why those values have been adopted, therefore, the value adopted by the adjudicating authority is held to be not correct.
16.2 Moreover, the claim of M/s. Sharp is that these goods were manufactured by them during the period 1998 before obtaining Central Excise Registration. Therefore, the same are not liable to pay duty. It is also the contention of the appellant that in 1998, a fire took place in M/s. Sharps factory and the said goods were shifted in the said godowns in 1999 as M/s. Sharp was not having any place to store the same in the gutted factory and the said goods are lying in the godown as dead stock not intended for sale. The Ld. Cousnel also submitted during the course of argument that M/s. Sharp has filed a claim of loss before the insurance company on account of the fire incident took place in 1998 in their factory but fairly admitted that the appellant has not produced any evidence to that effect whether M/s. Sharp has filed any claim of insurance or not. Moreover, merely saying that fire took place in their factory does not absolve them from the liability of payment of duty. Therefore, the fact is to be ascertained whether fire took place in 1998 by adducing evidence with regard to the same. As M/s. Sharp have not produced the evidence of filing of insurance claim for loss of fire in their factory before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority have no occasion to examine the said document.
16.3. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the verification of the evidence that insurance claim has been filed by M/s. Sharp is required to be done by the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order to examine the for evidence whether the insurance claim has been filed by M/s. Sharp before the Insurance Company to arrive at a decision that the goods covered under sample mark 2H to 2S were manufactured in 1998 i.e. prior to obtaining the Central Excise registration by M/s. Sharp.
17. In these circumstances, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority for limited purpose to examine the insurance documents with regard to the goods represented by sample no. 2H-2S and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law following the principle laid down by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Flevel International (supra) . It is pertinent to mention here that M/s. Sharp shall be given reasonable opportunity to defend their case.
18. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order qua M/s. Sharp holding confiscation of goods demanding duty along with interest and imposing penalty.
19. In result, the following order is passed:-
a) The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
b) The appeal filed by M/s. Sharp is allowed by way of remand.
In these terms appeals are disposed of.
(Pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2015)
(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
20
E/1492 & 1496/2006-EX(DB)