Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hyundai Motor India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Central ... on 27 May, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Service Tax Appeal No. 40270 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. LTUC.367/2014-C dated 11.11.2014 passed by
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Large Tax Payer Unit, 1775, Jawarharlal Nehru
Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar, Western Extension, Chennai - 600 101)
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram - 602 117.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai LTU Commissionerate,
1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road,
Anna Nagar, Western Extension,
Chennai - 600 101.
With
Service Tax Appeal No. 40628 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. LTUC.573/2015-C dated 31.12.2015 passed by
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Large Tax Payer Unit, 1775, Jawarharlal Nehru
Inner Ring Road, Anna Nagar, Western Extension, Chennai - 600 101)
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram - 602 117.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai LTU Commissionerate,
1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road,
Anna Nagar, Western Extension,
Chennai - 600 101.
With
Service Tax Appeal No. 41150 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 13/2018(CTA-II) dated 02.02.2018 passed by
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, No. 1, Goubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001)
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram - 602 117.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Puducherry Commissionerate,
No. 1, Goubert Avenue,
Puducherry - 605 001.
2
And
Service Tax Appeal No. 40304 of 2022
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 21/2022 dated 04.03.2022 passed by Commissioner of
GST and Central Excise, Newry Towers, No. 2054-I, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600
040)
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irungattukottai, Sriperumpudur,
Kancheepuram - 602 117.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate,
Newry Towers, No. 2054-I,
II Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 600 040.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate
Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER Nos. 40540-40543 / 2024
DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 27.05.2024
Order :- Per Ms. Sulekha Bheevi C.S.
The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they are
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2.1 Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of cars.
They have obtained registration with the Central Excise Department for
3
payment of excise duty as well as with the Service Tax Commissionerate for
payment of service tax on the services rendered by them.
2.2 The car manufactured by the appellant are sold, to their own
depots (company owned and operated dealers) and other dealers who in
turn sell the cars to the ultimate buyers. During audit, it was noted by the
officers of the Department that the appellant is providing Extended Warranty
Scheme (EWS) to customers. The appellant solicits and effects contractual
obligation of extended warranty scheme at their owner dealer-cum-service
station as well as through other dealers. The appellant‟s depots and
Authorised Service Stations were paying service tax on the upfront charges
collected towards the extended warranty scheme till 30.06.2012. Whereas,
for the upfront charges collected by the appellant through other dealers, no
service tax was being discharged. In addition to manufacture of cars, the
appellant has a „certified used car program‟ under the brand name
"Advantage", whereby used vehicles certified by Hyundai Engineers are sold
with a Hyundai Warranty up to 1 year / 20,000 Kms along with two free
services. The appellant had not discharged service tax on amount collected
for used car program also. Show Cause Notices for the different periods
were issued to the appellant proposing to classify the said services under
„Repairs of Vehicles‟ as under Section 65(105)(zo) for the period from
01.05.2011 to 30.06.2012 and demanding the service tax along with
interest and also for imposing penalties.
2.3 So also, Show Cause Notices were issued for the period from
01.07.2012 to March 2014 demanding service tax on the upfront charges
4
collected as the activity of EWS is „service‟ as defined under Section 65B(44)
of Finance Act, 1994. In reply to the Show Cause Notice for the period with
effect from 01.07.2012, the appellant stated that they are paying service tax
on these upfront charges under the category of Works Contract Services
(WCS). Being WCS, after 01.07.2012, the appellant paid service tax on
70% of the gross value of the amount so collected by availing abatement of
30% in terms of Rule 2(A)(ii)(B) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value)
Rules, 2006 applicable to Works Contract Services (WCS). The Department
was of the view that for the period after 01.07.2012, the services do not fall
under Works Contract Service as under Section 65B(54) and being a
„Service‟ under Section 65B(44), the appellant has to discharge service tax
on the full amount without availing abatement of 30% of the gross value of
the upfront charges.
2.4 After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the
demand, interest and imposed penalties as proposed in the Show Cause
Notices. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the same. Aggrieved by
such orders the appellants are now before the Tribunal.
3.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman appeared and
argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the demand has been raised
on the upfront charges collected by the appellant towards Extended
Warranty Scheme as well as for the amounts collected for used car scheme.
The definition of „Repair of Motor Vehicle Services‟ under Section
65(105)(zo) was amended with effect from 01.05.2011 by substituting the
words „by an authorized service station‟ with the words „by any person‟.
5
Thus upto 01.05.2011, service tax was leviable only when such services are
provided or to be provided by the authorized station only. After the
amendment even dealers who do repair services are brought within the tax
net. So, the dealers who are doing repair services under the cover of
Extended Warranty Scheme have to pay service tax. The Adjudicating
Authority has held that for the period prior to 01.07.2012, the EWS floated
by the appellant is covered by the definition of „Repair to Vehicle Services‟
under Section 65(105)(zo) which is erroneous. Though the appellant
collected EWS upfront charges, there is an implied understanding that the
dealer would attend and carry out the repair services. The appellant is
therefore not the service provider for the EWS.
3.2 It is submitted that prior to 01.07.2012, the demand cannot be raised
under the category of „Repair of Vehicle Services‟ as the service is composite
in nature involving use of materials (spares / parts) and rendition of service.
The service of repairs to motor vehicles was introduced as a taxable service
with effect from 16.07.2001. The service defined under Section 65(105)(zo)
for the period prior to 01.05.2011 is as under:-
―Section 65(105) "Taxable Service" means any service provided or to be
provided-
.......
(zo) to any person, by an authorised service station, in relation to any service repair, reconditioning or restoration of motor cars, light motor vehicles or two wheeled motor vehicles, in any manner;‖ The above definition was amended with effect from 01.05.2011 and the definition reads as under:-
―Section 65(105) "Taxable Service" means any service provided or to be provided-
...........
(zo) to any person, by any other person, in relation to any service for repair, reconditioning, restoration or decoration or any other similar 6 services, of any motor vehicle other than three wheeler scooter auto-
rickshaw and other motor vehicle meant for goods carriage‖ 3.3 Consequent to the amendment, the Department has presently raised the demand on the appellant alleging that the appellant being a manufacturer is liable to pay service tax on the upfront charges collected by the appellant as the definition of repair of vehicle services after 01.05.2011 is not confined to authorised service station only.
3.4 The Ld. Counsel argued that repair of vehicle services involve use of materials like replacement of parts / spares and therefore is in the nature of works contract services. The replacement of parts and spares involve sale of goods to the customer and as there is transfer of property in goods the demand of service tax can only be under Works Contract Services and not under „Repair of Vehicle Services‟ under Section 65(105)(zo). While doing the repair of vehicles, the dealer / service station has to pay VAT on the materials used. This would indicate that the activity of repair is not service simplicitor and is composite involving the use of materials and rendition of service which can fall under WCS only.
3.5.1 To support this argument, the Ld. Counsel relied upon by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2023 (8) TMI 409-CESTAT Chennai]. It is submitted that in the said decision, the Tribunal held that the demand under Repair of Vehicle Services under Section 65(105)(zo) cannot sustain for the period prior upto 30.06.2012, for the reason that the nature of the repair services are Works Contract Services. It was also noted by the Tribunal that with effect from 01.07.2012, Section 65B(54) the definition of 7 works contract service is applicable to repair of movable property. The definition of Works Contract Service reads as under:-
"Section 65B(54)- Works Contract Services:-
works contract" means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property;‖ 3.5.2 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal in the case of M/s.
Ford India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed that the nature of contracts under Extended Warranty Service being composite contract which involve use of materials as well as rendition of services, the demand of service tax for the period prior to 01.07.2012 cannot be made under Section 65(105)(zo) and can be only under Section 65(105)(zzzza) as Works Contract Service. It is prayed that the demand raised under Section 65(105)(zo) for the period prior to 01.07.2012 may be set aside.
3.6 The Ld. Counsel put forward arguments relying upon the very same decision to contend that the said decision would apply for the period post 01.07.2012 also. The Ld. Counsel adverted to the definition of Works Contract Services under Section 65B(54) reproduced above and submitted that with effect from 01.07.2012, the repair of motor vehicles would fall under Works Contract Services as it involves the use of materials and an element of sale of goods.
3.7 It is submitted that accordingly for the period post 01.07.2012, the appellant has discharged service tax under Works Contract Services after availing 30% abatement in terms of Rule 2(A)(ii)(B) of the Service Tax 8 (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 applicable to WCS. The appellant having correctly discharged the service tax, the Show Cause Notice issued and demand confirmed is without any basis.
3.8 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant started paying service tax on the upfront charges collected from the customers on Extended Warranty Scheme through their dealers from 01.07.2012 onwards under the category of Works Contract Services and also the warranty charges collected on used cars. The undertaking provided by the appellant to the customer through this extended warranty service is in the nature of Works Contract Service as the appellant undertakes to replace the defective parts covered under the extended warranty scheme and also to provide repair services free of charge basis. Accordingly, service tax has been discharged in terms of Rule 2(A)(ii)(B) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, on 70% of the gross value after availing abatement of 30% as applicable to Works Contract Services. The said gross value is taken for calculating the payment of service tax on the premise that cost of parts involved is not determinable at the time of collection of amount towards Extended Warranty Scheme.
3.9 The Ld. Counsel adverted to Paragraph 6.8.2 of CBEC‟s Education Guide on taxation of services and submitted that it has been clarified by Board that post 01.07.2012, a contract for repair or maintenance of motor vehicles are to be treated as Works Contract Service and service tax has to be paid on the service portion of such a contract. The extract of the clarification reads as under:-
9
―6.8.2 Would contracts for repair or maintenance of motor vehicles be treated as ‗works contract'? If so, how would the value be determined for ascertaining the value portion of service involved in execution of such a works contract?
Yes. Contracts for repair or maintenance of moveable properties are also works contracts if property in goods is transferred in the course of execution of such a contract. Service Tax has to be paid in the service portion of such a contract.‖ 3.10 It is submitted that from the above, it is very much clear that repair of vehicle is Works Contract Services. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to accept the contention of the appellant that the EWS is in the nature of Works Contract Services by erroneously observing that there is no transfer of property / sale of goods at the time of entering into the EWS contract. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that though at the time of collecting the upfront charges there is no transfer of property in the goods, the appellant undertakes to do repairs of the vehicle which involves transfer of property in goods and therefore the service is in the nature of Works Contract Services. It is argued that if the interpretation of the Department is accepted, it may lead to a situation where any advance collected in respect of any works contract will have to be treated as „pure service‟ and then service tax would be payable on the entire value of the advance received in spite of the fact that the activity involves transfer of property in goods. In the case of providing WCS, invoices are raised and the assessee is liable to pay service tax after deducting the abatement, so that value of the goods used for providing WCS are not subject to levy of service tax. The Original Authority has not considered these aspects and erroneously held that the activity does not fall under Works Contract Services. 10 3.11 It is argued that the appellant has collected upfront charges towards the sale of right to the service relating to extended warranty. The appellant thus undertakes to give the right to service relating to the extended warranty to the ultimate customers who may exercise their right of availing such service after expiry of normal warranty period, upon payment of certain fee depending upon the model of the car purchased. The appellant only gives the right of service to the customer. The customer is at liberty to get the service from the dealers. The customer is the service recipient and the appellant is only paying the charges for the repair service on behalf of the receiver of service during the period of Extended Warranty Scheme. The dealers who are under an agreement with the appellant undertake to provide the warranty service and the cost of such service is being claimed as reimbursement by the dealers from the appellant. Upon completion of service dealer pays VAT of parts / spares and service tax is to be paid by the dealers on the labour charges respectively. Any tax levied on the appellant would be double taxation.
3.12 According to the Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax is payable only when the provider of services, provides or agrees to provide any taxable service. In the instant case, the appellant only gives the EWS certificate to the customer that they can avail the extended warranty service from the dealers. It is only a right to service. It is the dealer who renders the service of repair of vehicles to the customers to the absolute exclusion of the appellant.
3.13 The CBEC Education Guide clarifies as to who is the service recipient. It reads as under:-11
―5.3.3 Who is the service receiver?
Normally, the person who is legally entitled to receive a service and, therefore, obliged to make payment, is the receiver of service, whether or not he actually makes the payment or someone else makes the payment on his behalf.‖ The customer is the receiver of service and the appellant is only paying the service charges on behalf of the receiver of service. As there is only one service transaction provided, the service tax cannot be charged on two persons. It is submitted that if the Department intends to collect service tax from the actual provider of service, then any tax levied on the appellant would amount to levy of double taxation which against law. It is submitted that the appellant having discharged the service tax under WCS, availing the abatement correctly, the present demand on the entire value of upfront charges may be set aside.
3.14 The Ld. Counsel argued on the ground of limitation also. The appellant was under bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax for the sale of extended warranty services. However, only by abundant caution they have paid service tax under Works Contract Services defined under Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994. The issue is wholly interpretational in nature. The appellant having discharged service tax in accordance with Works Contract Service cannot be saddled with the guilt of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. The Department has not established any positive act of suppression on the part of the appellant. It is submitted that for these reasons, the invocation of extended period and the penalties imposed may be set aside. 12 4.1 The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Anoop Singh appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted that the main issue to be decided is whether the Extended Warranty Scheme (EWS) rendered by the appellant is covered under the definition of Repair of Vehicle Services under Section 65(105)(zo) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period from 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2012 and whether it would fall under the definition of „Service‟ under Section 65B(44) for the period with effect from 01.07.2012 onwards. The Ld. Authorised Representative adverted to the Extended Warranty Scheme captured and summarized by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order as under:-
―The Extended Warranty Scheme is an extension of the existing warranty period on chargeable basis and is an optional scheme which could be opted either at the time of sale of car or before expiry of the existing warranty period. The interested customer has to fill up a contract form (EW registration form) for on Extended Warranty Scheme to provide a request and accordingly the Vehicle Identification Number [VIN] of the vehicle would be validated and if the warranty has not expired the dealer collects the amount towards the same. The registration of the extended warranty document would be submitted through their Global Dealer Management System (GDMS), system by the dealer and the validation of the VIN happens in Global Warranty Management System (GWMS) maintained by HMIL. The extended Warranty Certificate would be generated by the GDMS system at the dealer end on behalf of HMIL.
Extended Warranty:-
It is an extension of the existing Warranty period and can be acquired by the customer on paying a premium available from HMIL. The extended warranty can be transferred to another owner if the vehicle is sold by the first user. However, the warranty cannot be transferred to another vehicle. Also, the extended warranty has no surrender value and the warranty premium is also non-refundable.
Coverage Period:
HMIL offer additional coverage period as follows - For petrol vehicles a. 3rd year or up to 60,000 km; or b. 3rd and 4th year or up to 80,000 km; or C. 4th year or up to 80,000 km (only for owners who have opted for s.no. 'a'); 13 For. Accent Diesel & Verna Diesel models only a. 3rd year or up to 80,000 km What is covered?
If any defect is detected which is identified as Mechanical and /or Electrical breakdown as defined in the warranty, within the stipulated terms and conditions, the HMIL dealer shall repair or if required replace such defective parts. The parts so replaced, become the property of HMIL. What is not Covered:
This warranty does not apply to:
Normal maintenance services such as, cleaning and polishing, adjustments, lubrication, oil changes, anti-freeze coolant replenishment, engine turning, fluid changes, filters replenishment, fastener retightening, wheel balancing, wheel alignment and the rotation etc. Normal deterioration or wear of any part.
Replacement of parts as a result of normal wear and tear such as spark plugs, belts, brake pads and linings, clutch, disc/facing, filters, wiper blades, bulbs, fuses etc. Any vehicle where the odometer mileage has been altered Paintwork, body work, water ingress and corrosion, glass lenses, trim bright work, door lock cylinders and air bags Wheels, wheel balancing trees, exhaust system and catalytic converter. Engine tuning, cleaning of fuel lines, filters, nozzles, carburetors and pumps, drive belts that are not encased, impact or external damage, de- carbonization and failures caused by the build up of carbon deposits (including burnt valves).
All wiper blades and rubbers, hoses, pipes and unions. Mountings (including engine mountings), tapings, supports, fixings and fastening devices those have been incorrectly required or replaced or are subject to routine servicing adjustments Batteries, wires, terminals, reconnecting of disturbed electrical connections, lamps, bulbs, fuses, audio and in car entertainment equipment and aerials and car telephones.
Failure of clutch and brake materials due to wear, adjustments, alignments and any item associated with manufacturers recommended routine servicing or failures due to the lack of oils or coolant through neglect.
Seals and gaskets that are subject to replacement or refitment as part of the normal service schedule.
Fule, chemical, materials, additives, hydraulic fluids, oils or grease except where required in direct connection with a repair to a covered part. The cost of normal servicing, service items and other items which can be expected to wear as part of their function.
Clutch cable, speedometer cable.
Struts, shockers>60K.
Unauthorized LPG.
LPG parts.
Owner's Responsibilities:-
Proper use, maintenance and care of vehicle in accordance with the instructions contained in the Owner's Manual and Service Booklet. 14 In order to maintain the validity of the Extended Warranty, the vehicle must be services by HMIL's Authorized Dealer or Service.‖
4.2 On a reading of the above salient features of the EWS, it can be seen that the scheme is an optional one and a customer can opt EWS either at the time of purchase of the car or before the expiry of existing period. Thus, there is a contractual agreement between the appellant and ultimate buyers while providing EWS. As per EWS, service is available to the customer from the appellant on payment of consideration. The appellant issues an extended warranty certificate through the dealer. So, also the EWS is transferable and has no surrender value.
4.3 For the period prior to 01.07.2012, the demand has been raised on the appellant under Section 65(105)(zo) after the amendment to the definition by which the words „by an authorised service station‟ was substituted with the words „by any other person‟. Since the appellant is issuing the extended warranty scheme and receiving consideration, they are liable to pay service tax on the upfront charges collected. The demand for the period prior to 01.07.2012 would be covered under Section 65(105)(zo) and the demand raised is legal and proper. It is submitted that the definition of Works Contract Services under Section 65B(54) would not be applicable to the period prior to 01.07.2012 and that the activity is not WCS. 4.4 In regard to the demand for the period post 01.07.2012, the Ld. Counsel adverted to the definition of „service‟ as under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. This definition expressly states that it „includes a declared service‟. Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994, gives the list of 15 declared services. In the said list, clause (e) states that services in the nature of „agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act‟ is a declared service. As per the EWS, the appellant renders a service in the nature of agreeing to the obligation to do an act. Therefore, providing EWS is a declared service. Show Cause Notice has been issued demanding the service tax under Section 66B(44) for the period post 01.07.2012 and therefore is legal and proper. 4.5 The appellant has discharged service tax for the period post 01.07.2012 only on 70% of the gross value by classifying the service under Works Contract Services. It is submitted by the Ld. Authorised Representative that the service provided by appellant under EWS is not a Works Contract. Though post 01.07.2012, Section 65(54) defines Works Contract Services to include repairs of movable property (vehicles), the service rendered by the appellant is assuring the repair of movable property and is not in the nature of Works Contract Service falling under Section 65B(54).
4.6 In the case of Works Contract, it has to necessarily involve transfer of property in goods. However, under the Extended Warranty Scheme there is only assurance to repair and replace parts and thus, there is no element of transfer of property in goods. It is explained by the Ld. Authorised Representative that the appellant only enters into an obligation to do the service of repairing the motor vehicles in future during the extended warranty period. There is no actual execution of works contract. The Extended Warranty Scheme is in the nature of a promise undertaken by appellant to fulfil the requirement of doing the repairs of the vehicle in the 16 happening of a contingency in future. Such repair may sometimes involve transfer of property in goods (replacement of parts / spares) and may sometimes involve only service without any transfer of property in goods. In some situations, the repair service may involve both transfer of property in goods as well as services. The Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 5.2 of impugned order dated 15.03.2017 in Appeal No. ST/41150/2018 has illustrated the contingencies and the relevant Paragraph reads as under:-
―From a plain reading of the above provisions, it appeared that, for a composite contract to be classified as ‗Works Contract', it has to necessarily involve transfer in property in goods for the execution of the contract. However, under the Extended Warranty Scheme, transfer in property in goods does not necessarily take place during the execution of the contract. To further illustrate the same, it is seen that the following contingencies are likely to arise during the life of the contract. i. No repairs / maintenance would have been needed for the cars and consequently, the Taxpayer may not have provided any services under the contract; or ii. The Taxpayer might have provided repair / maintenance service under the contract without involving supply of any spare parts; or iii. The Taxpayer might have provided repair / maintenance service under the contract which involves supply of spare parts.‖ 4.7 Only in the case of Sl.No. (iii) as above, transfer of property in goods is involved in execution of the contract and in remaining cases, no goods are supplied by the appellant. Even, in case of Sl.No. (iii), the services are provided by the dealer for repair / maintenance of the vehicle and billed separately as a service. The service provided by the appellant in accordance with EWS is not actual repair of vehicles but only a promise to repair the vehicles in the event of happening of the contingency of the vehicles requiring repair / replacement of parts. 4.8 It is stressed by the Ld. Authorised Representative that situations also may occur when no repair / maintenance is needed at all during the EWS period and no such repair / maintenance / replacement are 17 provided. Thus there may be situations or contingencies in which vehicle is never brought to the service stations, situation were billing of repair is much more than the upfront charges paid, situation where billing of repair is much less than the upfront charges paid, etc. Thus, the service provided of issuing EWS is not actual repair service but only a promise to do repair in future and there is no element of sale / transfer of property in goods at the time when the Extended Warranty Service is issued by the appellant and therefore EWS is not a Works Contract Service.
4.9 The reliance placed by the appellant on the CBEC Education Guide was countered by the Ld. AR by submitting that as per the clarification, repair or maintenance of the vehicle is to be treated as Works Contract Service only if property in goods is transferred in course of execution of contract. In the present case, there is no transfer of property in goods as the service is in the nature of an assurance. 4.10 The Ld. Authorised Representative stressed that EWS is just an agreement obliging to carry out repair services by the appellant in a situation that may or may not happen in future. The customer is thus protected from risk of manufacturing defects. It is an assurance given that genuine Hyundai parts will be used for replacement and also a protection from risk of the hike in labour charges, parts, etc. It also gives peace of mind to the customer as the risk is taken care of by the assurance given by the appellant / manufacturer.18
4.11 The definition of service under Section 65B(44) states that it includes declared services. Further, Section 65E(e) states that agreeing to the obligation to do an act is a declared service. The appellants therefore cannot classify the EWS as Works Contract Services and pay service tax only the 70% of upfront charges collected by them after availing abatement. At the time of agreeing to the obligation of EWS and receiving the consideration there is no transfer of property in goods and there is no payment of VAT.
From this itself, it is clear that EWS is a service of assuring the customer and not rendering of Works Contract Services.
4.12 The appellants are liable to pay service tax on the entire amount received for EWS. They have discharged service tax only on 70% of the value after availing 30% abatement by classifying the service under Works Contract Service. For the period after 01.07.2012, the differential demand of service tax has been made under Section 65B(44) on the entire value and therefore the demand raised is legal and proper.
4.13 It is submitted that the spirit and language in Section 65B(44) and Section 65E are harmonious and do not let in any room for alternate interpretation. Neither is there, any casus omissus in the statute, in as much as there is no need for any words to be added or substituted to arrive at the conclusion that EWS falls within the ambit of Section 65B(44) of the Act. The appellant has charged consideration in the nature of EWS for agreeing to an obligation as per the contractual terms to do certain acts under certain conditions and same stands covered under the definition of declared service as per provision of Section 66E of the Act. 19 4.14 The appellant is a manufacturer whose existence is dependent on the sale of its motor cars. To retain the market and to widen it, a number of services are rendered in relation to sale of cars. The sale is packaged attractively through post-sale services rendered through its dealer network. The beneficiary or service recipient of EWS is the purchaser of cars. A situation of replacement of defective vehicle or parts are not happy anticipations. These are in the nature of low probability risks which are attempted to be mitigated through the Extended Warranty Scheme. 4.15 The repair service / replacement of parts are rendered by the dealer of appellant. Only when need for replacement arises, an element of sale will happen. Mere assurance by EWS does not of itself create a transfer of property in goods. What has been agreed or agreed to be provided is the warranty and not actual repairs of part or normal maintenance of vehicle during the warranty period.
4.16 The Ld. Authorised Representative relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU Chennai [2019 (29) GSTL 452 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The consideration received by appellant towards EWS has nothing to do with the actual cost of service or repair or whether the same is being reimbursed or not. The appellant is liable to pay service tax on the entire upfront charges collected by them. There is no situation of double taxation. 4.17 The Ld. AR submitted that non-payment of service tax would not have come to light but for the verification done by the Department. The 20 demand raised invoking the extended period as well as the penalties imposed are legal and proper. It is prayed that the appeals may be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The issue to be decided in these appeal are:-
i. Whether the demand of service tax raised for the period from 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2012 under Section 65(105)(zo) on the consideration received by the appellant for Extended Warranty Service (EWS) is sustainable or not.
ii. Whether the demand of service raised under Section 65B(44) for the period post 01.07.2012 on the consideration received by the appellant for Extended Warranty Service (EWS) is sustainable or not. Period prior to 01.07.2012:-
7.1 In regard to the period from 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2012, the Department has raised the demand against the appellant for the reason that the definition of „Repairs to Vehicle Services‟ which was introduced as a taxable service with effect from 16.07.2001 was amended with effect from 01.05.2011 by substituting the words „by an authorised service station' with the words „by any person'. The definition has already been reproduced in Paragraph 3.2 (ii). Consequent to the amendment, the Department entertained the view that the appellant having collected charges for EWS they are liable to pay service tax under „Repair of Vehicle Services‟ with effect from 01.05.2011 till 30.06.2012.
217.2 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has countered the above allegation in Show Cause Notice by stating that the „Repairs to Vehicle Services‟ involves transfer of property in goods and being a composite contract has to be classified under the Works Contract Services. The ingredients of the service of repair to vehicles does not include the element of transfer of property in goods as in the case of definition of WCS under Section 65(105)(zzzza) and therefore Section 65(105)(zo) is applicable only to service simplicitor. The definition of Works Contract Services introduced with effect from 01.07.2012 has also been taken assistance to support this argument.
7.3 The issue whether the activity of issuing EWS would fall under „Repair to Vehicle Services‟ prior to 01.07.2012 has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2023 (8) TMI 409-CESTAT CHENNAI], wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that prior to 01.07.2012, the demand cannot sustain under Section 65(105)(zo) for the reason that repair to vehicle services involve both use of materials and rendition of service. The relevant paragraphs of the Tribunal decision read as under:-
"8. The extended warranty plans are composite contracts involving labour by way of repairs and material by way of parts being replaced. Service tax is not leviable on composite contract for maintenance and repair of vehicle which entails both supply of goods and services for the period upto 01.07.2012.
8.1 A contract which has both the elements of goods and service is a works contract. Much water has flown under the bridge since service tax was levied on composite works contracts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Kerala and Others Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Others [2015- TIOL- 187-SC-ST] after elaborate discussion of the various provisions and judicial pronouncements in no ambiguous terms ruled that works contract cannot be subject to Service Tax before 01/06/2007. The question which remains is whether Service Tax is leviable on composite 22 contract for maintenance and repair of vehicle which entails both supply of goods and services for the period from 01/06/2007 up to 01/07/2012, when the negative list of services was introduced. 8.1 The facts are that the appellant offers warranty for cars manufactured by them and sold to customers through their Authorized Dealers (dealers), who also conduct the servicing of the cars. The Appellant provides factory warranty coverage (―normal warranty‖) for 2 years at the time of sale of each car. The present dispute does not deal with the issue of normal warranty. The appellant also offers ‗extended warranty' under three optional coverage plans (collectively ―Plans‖) to the customers. The extended warranty plans are sold by the appellant to their car customers through their dealers. The Plans are detailed hereinbelow:-
What the Plan does Sl. Plan Name Plan Coverage not cover a. Extended Mechanical or electrical failure Normal wear & tear Warranty will be covered by repair or Depreciation Plan (EWP) replacement free of cost, so Negligence long as the vehicle had been serviced by an authorised dealer of the Appellant.
Mechanical failure
b. Scheduled Periodic maintenance services Electrical failure
Service Plan and replacement (if required) Normal wear and
(SSP) relating to engine oil, oil filter, tear
air filter, etc., Accident repairs
Labour costs for the same. Tyres
Fuel
c. Total Periodic maintenance services
Maintenance Mechanical and electrical Accident repairs
Plan (TMP) failures Tyres
Wear and tear parts Fuel
Labour costs
Whenever a customer invokes the extended warranty, the customer approaches the dealers, who provide the repairs and replace defective parts if necessitated. The dealers then raise claims upon the appellant for reimbursement of the value of the repairs and parts replaced. The appellant then reimburse the dealers for the claims so raised, inclusive of applicable Value Added Tax (‗VAT') component on the parts replaced. The impugned order has demanded service tax on this transaction which is now under dispute before us.
8.2 Before we go forward a question arises as to whether the service of ‗extended warranty' will be liable to tax under ‗Repairs to Vehicle' service as per Section 106(65)(zo) which was introduced from 16/07/2001 or as a ‗Works Contract'. As stated earlier, a contract which has both the elements of goods and service is a works contract. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner Central Excise & Customs, Kerala vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 6770 OF 2004/ 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)] held that ‗Works Contract' is a separate species of contract distinct from contracts for services simpliciter recognized by the world of commerce and law as such and has to 23 be taxed separately as such. Hence the impugned service has to be examined as a ‗works contract' with respect to its taxability. 8.3 It is the appellants contention that under the service tax regime, taxability on service tax portion of a composite works contract was made taxable for the first time w.e.f. 01.06.2007 vide insertion of Section 65(105)(zzzza). That for the period from 01.06.2007 to 30.06.2012, service portion of composite works contract was levied to service tax only in respect of the following five categories of contracts as mentioned under definition of ‗works contract' under Explanation to clause (zzzza) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994:
i. contracts relating to erection and commissioning of plant and equipment, ii. construction of immovable property and civil structures, iii. construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof, iv. turnkey projects; and v. repair services only for immovable property, civil structures, and residential complex.
Section 65(105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994 which deals with the taxability of works contract from 01.06.2007, is reproduced below;
"To any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-clause, "works contract" means a contract wherein,--
(i) transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and
(ii) such contract is for the purposes of carrying out,--
(a) erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air- conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or
(b) construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or
(c) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or
(d) completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to (b) and (c); or
(e) turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects"
Explanation (ii)(d) to the above section makes it clear that works contract for carrying out repair is in relation to construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry or construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof alone are covered. Repair and maintenance of vehicles, was not covered under Explanation (ii)(d). A 24 major shift in the service tax provisions was made by the introduction of the ‗negative list' of services in the Finance Act 1994. After deleting the ―definition section‖ from the Finance Act, 1994, one new Section 65B (Interpretations) has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2012. In the new system all services, except those specified in the negative list, were subject to Service Tax. Subsequently Notification No. 19/2012 ST dated 05.06.2012 was issued specifying that the new Section 65B (Interpretations), among others, would be effective from 01/07/2012. Section 65B(54) defines ‗works contract' as under;
"works contract" means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property;
(emphasis added) It is seen from the above that after the insertion of section 65B(54) in the Finance Act 1994, from 01.07.2012 onwards, the definition of ‗works contract' was expanded to include repair and maintenance services of movable properties also. Hence, the composite contracts for repair and maintenance of motor vehicles are leviable to service tax from 01.07.2012 onwards.
9. VAT and Service tax are mutually exclusive levies. The present demand has sought to subject the entire value to service tax, despite the fact that the spare parts were subjectedto VAT.
10. Without prejudice, the Appellant is entitled to claim deduction on the value of goods and materials in terms of Notification No. 12/2003 - ST dated 20.06.2003.
11. Cum-tax benefit ought to be extended to the Appellant.
12. Demand of Rs.3,03,65,844/- is time-barred.
13. There can be no interest liability and penalty fastened on the Appellant.
14. We find that the issues raised by the appellant and listed at paras 9 to 13 above relate to the pre 01/07/2012 period. The demand in the impugned order is for the period from 1.5.2011 to 30.6.2012. Since we have already concluded that the composite contracts for repair and maintenance of motor vehicles are leviable to service tax from 01.07.2012 onwards, none of these issues survive.
15. Having regard to the facts as discussed above we set aside the impugned order. The appeal succeeds and is disposed of accordingly. The appellant is eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law.‖ 25 7.4 Following the above decision, we are of the considered opinion that for the period prior to 01.07.2012, the demand raised under Section 65(105)(zo) cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
Period after 01.07.2012:-
8.1 We, now proceed to examine the demand post 01.07.2012. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that post 01.07.2012 also, the service rendered by the appellant under EWS would be WCS and that the appellant having discharged the service tax under WCS by availing 30% abatement, the present demand raised on the entire amount denying the abatement cannot be sustained. The Ld. AR has countered the above submissions by stating that post 01.07.2012, the definition of service provided under Section 65B(44) would cover the activity of issuing EWS and therefore, the activity will not fall under WCS.
8.2.1 The Show Cause Notice has been issued demanding the service tax post 01.07.2012 under Section 65B(44). The definition of „service‟ under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, is reproduced as under:-
―Service‖ means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a declared service, but shall not include-
(a) an activity which constitutes merely,--
(i) a transfer of title in goods or immovable property, by way of sale, gift or in any other manner; or
(ii) such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods which is deemed to be a sale within the meaning of clause (29A) of Article 366 of the Constitution; or
(iii) a transaction in money or actionable claim;
(b) a provision of service by an employee to the employer in the course of or in relation to his employment;26
(c) fees taken in any Court or tribunal established under any law for the time being in force.‖ 8.2.2 From the above definition, it can be seen that post 01.07.2012, „service‟ includes declared services. Section 66E gives the list of declared services and clause (e) of Section 66E speaks about „agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act‟.
―Section 66E. Declared services.
The following shall constitute declared services, namely:--
(a) renting of immovable property;
(b) construction of a complex, building, civil structure or a part thereof, including a complex or building intended for sale to a buyer, wholly or partly, except where the entire consideration is received after issuance of completion-certificate by the competent authority.
Explanation. -- For the purposes of this clause,--
(I) the expression ―competent authority‖ means the Government or any authority authorized to issue completion certificate under any law for the time being in force and in case of non-requirement of such certificate from such authority, from any of the following, namely:--
(A) architect registered with the Council of Architecture constituted under the Architects Act, 1972; or (B) chartered engineer registered with the Institution of Engineers (India);or (C) licensed surveyor of the respective local body of the city or town or village or development or planning authority; (II) the expression ―construction‖ includes additions, alterations, replacements or remodeling of any existing civil structure;
(c) temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment of any intellectual property right;
(d) development, design, programming, customization, adaptation, upgradation, enhancement, implementation of information technology software;27
(e) agreeing to the obligation to refrain from an act, or to tolerate an act or a situation, or to do an act;
(f) transfer of goods by way of hiring, leasing, licensing or in any such manner without transfer of right to use such goods;
(g) activities in relation to delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system of payment by instalments;
(h) service portion in the execution of a works contract;
(i) service portion in an activity wherein goods, being food or any other article of human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating) is supplied in any manner as a part of the activity.‖ 8.3 The main argument advanced by the appellant is that repair of vehicle involve replacement of spares / parts and as there is transfer of property in goods, such services are to be classified under Works Contract Services only. This argument is based on the definition of Works Contract Services under Section 65(105)(zzzza) and under Section 65B(54) introduced post 01.07.2012. Section 65B(44) is reproduced below:-
"works contract" means a contract wherein transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods and such contract is for the purpose of carrying out construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration of any movable or immovable property or for carrying out any other similar activity or a part thereof in relation to such property;‖ 8.4 The nature of EWS and its salient features are explained in paragraph 4.1 above. It is to be seen that while offering extended warranty services, the appellant does not render any actual repair work of the vehicle. The consideration (upfront charges) is received for offering to repair the vehicle in the event of happening of a requirement to repair the vehicle in future. It is more like assurance given to a customer. The appellant undertakes to do repair service without collecting any further amount during the warranty period. For better appreciation, a sample of the extended warranty certificate and its conditions are as under:- 28 29 8.5 As per the EWS certificate, the appellant undertakes to carry out the necessary remedial work (including replacement of parts / spares) necessitated by any mechanical / or electrical break down under normal use and maintenance, subject to terms and conditions. In essence, EWS is only a creation of an obligation to do an act. The consideration is paid by customer for this undertaking and is not paid for having done or for doing any remedial work instantly. EWS is a service in the nature of creating an obligation to do an act and then would fall under sub clause (e) of Section 66E which gives the list of declared services.30
8.6 The parties to EWS contract are the appellant and the customer. At the time of payment of consideration i.e., at the time of entering into the contract, the parties to the EWS are not aware as to what is the type of repair work that may occur in future. They do not know whether any repair work may be needed at all. Further, the repair work that arises in future may sometimes be lower than the consideration paid by customer for EWS and in some occasions, it may be higher. The customer as well the appellant are both taking risk. These situations are discussed by the Adjudicating Authority in Paragraph 5.2 of the order dated 15.03.2017 which has already been reproduced in Paragraph 4.6 above.
8.7 In the case of EWS, the appellant while receiving the consideration is for indemnifying risks for repair and replacement that may happen to the vehicle during the warranty period, subject to terms and conditions. The agreement is in the nature of a promise to do an act in the event of a contingency that may or may not happen in future and has to fall under Section 65E(e) as a declared service. The reimbursement of service charges to the dealer by appellant arises out of the separate dealership agreement. The EWS agreement is independent and entered by appellant with customer. There is no cause for double taxation. 8.8 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has been at pains to argue that since the repair of a motor vehicle involves supply of parts / spares and is composite in nature, the same has to be classified only under WCS. We have no quarrel that when actual repair work is done, the activity would fall under WCS as defined under Section 65B(54). However, in the present 31 case, it is only a promise to do the repair and the consideration is not for the actual repair. It has to be stated that in case there is an agreement to provide Works Contract Services (repair services), there is a specification as to what is the works that has to be executed and as well as the amount required for execution of such work. Both parties would be at consensus as to the nature of the work that has to be done as well as the consideration that has to be paid for the work. There is no element of risk involved to either parties. In other words, when there is a payment made agreeing to provide a service, both parties are well aware as to what is the service to be provided. In Extended Warranty Scheme, as already stated, the parties do not know whether the vehicle will require any repair or whether it will require only replacement of spares or whether it will require only services without replacement of spares or whether it will require both replacement and repair.
8.9 Another argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel is that sub- clause (h) of Section 66E covers Works Contract Services, and that when a specific provision is provided for Works Contract Services in the list of declared services, the Extended Warranty Scheme cannot be brought under sub-clause (e) of Section 66E which is only general in nature. The decision in the case of M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2023 (2) TMI 216-DELHI HIGH COURT] was relied by the appellant to support this argument. It is argued that in the said case, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi held that the right to tolerate an act cannot be held to fall under Section 66E(e), when there is a specific provision under clause (j) of Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994 which makes assignment by the Government of the right to use radio-frequency spectrum and subsequent 32 transfers thereof a declared service. On perusal of the facts, of the said case, we find that the writ petitioner therein (MTNL) had received lump sum amount as financial support in lieu of surrender of 800MHz CDMA carriers. The Department demanded service tax alleging that the amount is consideration for tolerating an act and therefore would fall under Section 66E(e). The Hon‟ble High Court held that it would not fall under Section 66E(e), as the amount paid to writ petitioner is not a consideration agreeing to the obligation to tolerate an act. MTNL had agreed to surrender the allotment of spectrum only because, the Department of telecommunication was not able to further provide the allocation. There was no consensus to discontinue the license. The facts are entirely different and the decision is of no assistance to the appellant. At the cost of repetition, we say that Sub- clause (h) of Section 66E covers actual Works Contract Services executed and does not cover the assurance to provide repair services. In actual repair services, there is an element of sale which involve transfer of property in goods and therefore for post 01.07.2012 would be a Works Contract Services. In EWS it‟s an assurance to provide repair service whereas, under Section 66E(h) it‟s the agreement to provide or to be provided which becomes taxable. In fact post 01.07.2012 any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration is a service. 8.10 The Ld. Counsel has adverted to the clarification issued by Board in GST regime vide Circular No. 195/07/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. The said Circular is reproduced as under:-33
Sl.No. Issue Clarifications
6. Sometimes companies (a) If a customer enters in to an agreement of
provide offers of Extended extended warranty with the manufacturer at the
warranty to the customers time of original supply, then the consideration for
which can be availed at the such extended warranty becomes part of the value
time of original supply or just of the composite supply, the principal supply
before the expiry of the being the supply of goods, and GST would be
standard warranty period. payable accordingly.
Whether GST would be
(b) However, in case where a consumer enters into
payable in both the cases?
an agreement of extended warranty at any time
after the original supply, then the same is a
separate contract and GST would be payable by
the service provider, whether manufacturer or the distributor or any third party, depending on the nature of the contract (i.e. whether the extended warranty is only for goods or for services or for composite supply involving goods and services) This Circular is of non-assistance to the appellant for the reason that GST considers payment of tax on supply and not in respect of service, alone. Further, the above only clarifies the levy of GST on warranty given by manufacturer at the time of sale of car and the warranty given later. 9.1 From the above discussions, we hold that the issuing Extended Warranty Scheme is a service falling under Section 65B(44) read with Section 66E(e). The demand is therefore sustainable.
9.2 Before we part, it requires to be stated that in the impugned order, the discussions are mainly countering the contention of the appellant that the activity falls under WCS. The Adjudicating Authority has elaborated on what is sale, agreement to sell, Provisions of Sale of Goods Act, etc. Pertinently, the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice post 01.07.2012 is under Section 65B(44) and finding of Adjudicating Authority is also that EWS falls under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. 34
10. The Ld. Counsel has argued on the ground of limitation and also prayed to set aside the penalties. We find that the appellant has adopted the classification under WCS for the period post 01.07.2012 and have discharged service tax by availing the abatement which is permissible if the activity is to be classified as WCS. This shows that appellant was under
bonafide belief that the EWS falls under WCS and had no intention to suppress facts to evade payment of tax. There is no positive act of suppression of facts established against the appellant. Further the issue being classification of service is purely interpretational in nature. For these reasons, we hold that the demand raised invoking the extended period requires to be set aside. For these same reasons, the penalties for the period post 01.07.2012 also requires to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
11. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of:-
i. setting aside the entire demand, interest and penalties for the period prior to 01.07.2012.
ii. for the period post 01.07.2012, the activity of issuing EWS falls under Section 65B(44) read with Section 66E(e) of Finance Act, 1994.
iii. the demand and interest post 01.07.2012 for the normal period is upheld and for the extended period is set aside.
iv. the penalties for the period post 01.07.2012 are entirely set aside.35
12. The appeals are partly allowed in above terms with consequential reliefs, if any.
(Order pronounced in open court on 27.05.2024)
Sd/- Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MK