CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit on GTA and Clearing & Forwarding Services for FOR Sales

Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on GTA and clearing and forwarding agency services where goods are sold on FOR basis, and also held that credit distributed through ISD cannot be denied to the recipient when no proceedings were initiated against the ISD.

Summary: M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Jharsuguda Cement Works, was engaged in manufacture of cement and clinker and availed CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Its head office, central marketing office and east zonal marketing office were registered as Input Service Distributors (ISDs), through which credit relating to common input services was distributed to its units. The east zonal marketing office was also registered as a recipient of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services and distributed the related credit through ISD.

Following EA-2000 audit of the appellant’s records, the Department issued show cause notices proposing denial of CENVAT Credit availed on the basis of ISD invoices, along with interest and equivalent penalty. The allegations included that GTA services used for transportation of finished goods from the factory to customers’ premises were beyond the place of removal and unrelated to manufacturing activity; that other services were received by offices at Kolkata rather than the appellant’s factory; and that the appellant had not disclosed input-service-wise credit in its ER-1 returns.

The Commissioner confirmed the proposed demands, observing that GTA and clearing and forwarding services were received beyond the place of removal and that other services received at the head office lacked an integral connection with the appellant’s manufacturing business. The appellant challenged the impugned orders before the Tribunal.

The appellant submitted that the issue of GTA services for transportation of goods sold on FOR basis was covered by the Larger Bench decision in The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT, Chennai (LB)]. It also relied on decisions concerning clearing and forwarding agency services and services received outside the factory. The appellant further contended that credit distributed through an ISD could not be denied to the recipient where no proceedings had been initiated against the ISD.

The Tribunal held that the issue relating to GTA and clearing and forwarding agency services in FOR destination contracts was no longer res integra. Following the Larger Bench decision in The Ramco Cements Ltd., it held that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT Credit on GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency services where the goods were sold on FOR basis.

The Tribunal also noted that the disputed credit had been availed on invoices issued by the ISD and that admittedly no proceedings had been initiated against the ISD. Relying on Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. and S.Tax, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 – CESTAT, New Delhi], it held that the credit availed at the appellant’s end could not be denied in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appellant had correctly taken CENVAT Credit, that denial of credit was not sustainable and that no penalty was imposable. The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Facts of the Case

M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Jharsuguda Cement Works, was engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker. During the underlying period, the appellant held excise registration and paid applicable excise duty on clearance of cement in cash and by utilising eligible CENVAT Credit in accordance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The appellant had a head office, central marketing office and east zonal marketing office. These offices obtained registration as Input Service Distributors under Rule 2(m) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The head office and central marketing office were common to all units of the appellant company in India, while the east zonal marketing office was directly related to certain units in the eastern zone.

The registered ISDs distributed CENVAT Credit relating to common input services, including advertisement, legal, event, courier, clearing and forwarding, audit, rent, telecommunication, repairs and tours, to the concerned units in accordance with the applicable rules.

The east zonal marketing office was also registered under the Finance Act, 1994 as a recipient of GTA services and discharged service tax under the reverse charge mechanism before distributing the credit through ISD.

Show Cause Notices and Department’s Allegations

Following an EA-2000 audit, the Department issued show cause notices on a periodic basis proposing denial of CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the basis of ISD invoices, along with interest and equivalent penalty.

• The Department alleged that freight expenses were incurred for transportation of finished goods from the factory to customers’ premises, had no relationship with manufacturing activity and were incurred beyond the place of removal, stated to be the factory gate.
• It was alleged that other services had no nexus with manufacturing activity because they were received by the appellant’s other offices in Kolkata.
• It was alleged that the appellant had not disclosed details of input-service-wise credit in the ER-1 return and had therefore suppressed the fact of availment of incorrect CENVAT Credit.

The appellant filed detailed replies to the show cause notices and reiterated its submissions during personal hearings.

Commissioner’s Findings

The Commissioner confirmed the proposed demands. The findings recorded in the impugned orders included that GTA services used for transportation of finished goods from the factory gate to customers’ premises had no relationship with manufacturing activity and were received beyond the place of removal. The Commissioner also considered that the goods were transported at the carrier’s risk and not at the appellant’s risk.

The Commissioner further held that clearing and forwarding agents’ services were received beyond the place of removal and therefore did not qualify as input services.

In respect of other services, the Commissioner held that they were not received at the appellant’s factory premises but at the head office and consequently lacked an integral connection with the manufacturing business of the appellant.

Submissions Before the Tribunal

GTA and Clearing and Forwarding Services

The appellant submitted that eligibility of CENVAT Credit on GTA services used for transportation of goods on FOR basis up to the customer’s place was covered by the Larger Bench decision in The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT, Chennai (LB)].

Reliance was also placed on Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. & Ors. v. Commr. of Central Tax, Bangalore [2022 (7) TMI 352-Karnataka High Court], Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham) [2019 (2) TMI 1487 -CESTAT Ahmedabad] as affirmed in 2020 (3) TMI 1206-Gujarat High Court, ACC Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST [2025 -TIOL-126- CESTAT-DEL], and the other decisions cited in the supplied material.

For clearing and forwarding agency services, the appellant relied upon CCE v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.)], Nitco Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Daman [2022 (7) TMI 12- CESTAT Ahmedabad] and Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2013 (31) STR 693 (Tri.-Bang.)].

Other Input Services

The appellant submitted that the remaining input services were eligible for CENVAT Credit irrespective of whether they were received inside or outside the factory. It relied on Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and submitted that the services qualified as input services.

The appellant specifically submitted that commission agency services were used for procuring orders; advertisement and sponsorship services were used for sales, publicity and brand building; manpower recruitment services were used for employing staff and workers; business support services covered consultancy, human resources, legal and management support; insurance services were used for mandatory insurance of workers and employees; godown and office rent related to storage and administrative activities; tour and travel services were used for marketing activities; event management services were used for company events and meetings; telephone and internet services were used in the regular course of business; courier services were used for documents and correspondence; management consultancy, repair and maintenance, banking and financial services, hotel services, chartered accountant services, legal services and railway freight services were also submitted to be connected with the appellant’s business and eligible for credit.

The appellant relied upon the judicial decisions cited against each category in the supplied material.

ISD Distribution

The appellant further submitted that proceedings regarding eligibility of CENVAT Credit ought to have been initiated against the ISD. It contended that since no proceedings had been initiated against the ISD, CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the basis of ISD distribution could not be denied.

Reliance was placed on Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-VI [2024 (6) TMI 761 – CESTAT, Kolkata] and Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 – CESTAT, New Delhi].

Revenue’s Submission

The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue supported the impugned orders.

Tribunal’s Observations and Findings

GTA and Clearing and Forwarding Agency Services

The Tribunal identified the main issue as whether the appellant was entitled to CENVAT Credit in respect of GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency services in cases involving FOR destination contracts.

The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT, Chennai (LB)]. The Larger Bench had observed that where clearances of goods were against FOR contract basis, the authority was required to ascertain the place of removal by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Board Circular dated 08.06.2018 for determining admissibility of CENVAT Credit on GTA service up to the place of removal.

The Tribunal therefore held that the issue was no longer res integra and that the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency services where the goods were sold on FOR basis. Accordingly, CENVAT Credit could not be denied on that basis.

Credit Distributed Through ISD

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by its ISD and that, admittedly, no proceedings had been initiated against the ISD.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the CENVAT Credit availed at the appellant’s end could not be denied. It relied upon Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. and S.Tax, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 – CESTAT, New Delhi], which had considered a similar issue concerning credit availed on the basis of ISD invoices.

The Tribunal in that decision had noted that where the dispute concerned the eligibility of services for credit distributed through an ISD, and proceedings had not been initiated against the ISD, the proceedings for disallowing the credit at the recipient’s end were liable to be set aside.

Final Decision

The Tribunal held that the appellant had correctly taken CENVAT Credit and that denial of the credit was not sustainable.

Since the denial of CENVAT Credit was not sustainable, the Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable on the appellant.

Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Cases Discussed

• The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT, Chennai (LB)]
• ACC Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST [2025 -TIOL-126- CESTAT-DEL]
• Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-VI [2024 (6) TMI 761 – CESTAT, Kolkata]
• Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2023 (11) TMI 299-CESTAT Allahabad] v. Inox Air Products Pvt. Ltd.
• Asst. Commr. CE & ST, v. Inox Air Products Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (4) TMI 32 -Himachal Pradesh High Court]
• Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. & Ors. v. Commr. of Central Tax, Bangalore [2022 (7) TMI 352-Karnataka High Court]
• Nitco Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Daman [2022 (7) TMI 12- CESTAT Ahmedabad]
• Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham) [2019 (2) TMI 1487 -CESTAT Ahmedabad] as affirmed in 2020 (3) TMI 1206-Gujarat High Court
• Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. and S.Tax, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 – CESTAT, New Delhi]
• Orient Paper Mills v. CCE & ST, Raipur [2016 (45) STR 178 (Tri. – Del.)]
• JP Morgan Services Ltd. v. CCE. [2016 (42) STR 196 (T)]
• IVY Comptech Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2016 (42) STR 66 (T)]
• CCE v. HCL Technologies [2015 (37) STR 716 (T)]
• Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. CCE [2015 (37) STR 395 (T)]
• Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2015 (38) STR 217]
• Lupin Ltd. v. CCE [2015 (39) STR 249 (T)]
• Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Belapur [2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)]
• Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2013 (31) STR 693 (Tri.-Bang.)]
• CCE v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.)]
• Utopia India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2011 (23) STR 25 (T)]
• Ace Glass Containers v. CCE [2010 (250) ELT 110 (T) as affirmed in 2014 (34) SRE 805 (Uttar.)]
• Classic Enterprises v. CCE & CGST, Alwar [2019 (7) TMI 760-CESTAT New Delhi]
• Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-II [2023 (6) TMI 457-CESTAT Kolkata]
• CCE v. Ambika Overseas [2012 (25) STR 348 (P&H)]
• HCL Technologies v. CCE [2014 (40) STR 1124 (1)]
• Bellsonica Auto Components India [2015 (40) STR 41 (P&H)]
• CCE v. BHPV Ltd. [2016-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-Hyd]
• JSW Steel Limited v. CCE [2014 (36) STR 801 (T)]
• KPMG v. CCE [2014 (33) STR 96 (T)]
• Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. Emco Ltd. [2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC)]
• CCE v. Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)]
• United Phosphorus Ltd. v. CCE, Surat II

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER

Both the appeals are having an identical issue and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal.

2. The facts of the case are as under: –

(i) M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Jharsuguda Cement Works (‘Appellant’) is engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker. Accordingly, during the underlying period, the Appellant held excise registration and paid the applicable excise duty on clearance of cement in cash and by utilizing eligible CENVAT credit in accordance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (‘CCR, 2004’).

(ii) The appellant-company has a head office, central marketing office and an east zonal marketing office, for which registration as Input Service Distributors (‘ISD’) was obtained under Rule 2(m) of CCR, 2004. The head office and the central marketing office were common to all units of the Appellant Company located in India, whereas the east zonal marketing unit was directly related to few units located in the eastern zone of India. Being registered as ISDs, all such offices distributed the CENVAT Credit of the common input services (advertisement, legal, event, courier, C&F, audit, rent, telecommunication, repairs, tours, etc.) to the concerned units of the appellant-company in accordance with the applicable rules of CCR, 2004.

(iii) Further, the east zonal marketing office was also registered under the Finance Act, 1994 as a recipient of Goods Transport Agency (‘GTA’) services, discharging service tax thereon under reverse charge mechanism and distributing the credit thereof through ISD.

(iv) On the basis of EA-2000 audit of the Appellant’s records conducted, the Department issued the underlying Show Cause Notices on a periodic basis proposing to deny CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant during the underlying period based on the ISD invoices issued by the ISDs, along with interest and equivalent penalty based on the following allegations:

a. The freight expenses have been incurred for transportation of finished goods from the factory date to customer’s premises, which has no relationship with the manufacturing activity and have been received beyond the place of removal i.e., factory gate. Therefore, the GTA services do not qualify as ‘input services’.

b. The other services have no nexus with the manufacturing activity since such services were not received by the Appellant, but by the other offices in Kolkata.

c. The Appellant did not disclose the details of the input services wise credit in the ER1 return, thus suppressing the fact of availment of such incorrect CENVAT Credit.

(v) The Appellant filed detailed replies to the underlying SCNs and reiterated such submissions at the time of the personal hearing to substantiate the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of all such services.

(vi) However, without considering such replies, the Ld. Commissioner issued the impugned orders to confirm the proposed demand based on the following findings:

a. The GTA services are availed for transportation of finished goods from the factory gate to customer’s premise has no relationship with the manufacturing activity and have been received beyond the place of removal i.e., factory gate. This is because, the goods were transported at the carrier’s risk and not at the risk of the Appellant.

b. The Clearing & Forwarding Agents’ services are also received beyond the place of removal and hence, do not qualify as ‘input services’.

c. The other services are not received at the factory premise of the Appellant, but at the head office of the Appellant Company. Hence, such services lack integral connection with the manufacturing business of the Appellant.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the appellant is before us.

4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue regarding eligibility of CENVAT Credit on GTA services received by an assessee for transportation of goods on FOR basis till the customer’s place, is no longer res integra being covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT, Chennai (LB)]. He also cited the following decisions in support: –

i. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. & Ors. v. Commr. of Central Tax, Bangalore [2022 (7) TMI 352-Karnataka High Court]

ii. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Kutch (Gandhidham) [2019 (2) TMI 1487 -CESTAT Ahmedabad] as affirmed in 2020 (3) TMI 1206-Gujarat High Court

iii. ACC Ltd. v. Commr. of CGST [2025 -TIOL-126- CESTAT-DEL]

iv. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2023 (11) TMI 299-CESTAT Allahabad] v. Inox Air Products Pvt. Ltd.

v. The Asst. Commr. CE & ST, [2024 (4) TMI 32 -Himachal Pradesh High Court]

4.1. He submits that the CENVAT Credit availed on clearing and forwarding agency service is duly eligible to the appellant. To support this contention, reliance is placed on the following decisions: –

i. CCE v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj.)]

ii. Nitco Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T. Daman [2022 (7) TMI 12- CESTAT Ahmedabad]

iii. Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2013 (31) STR 693 (Tri.-Bang.)]

4.2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the CENVAT Credit for the remaining input services is also eligible to the appellant irrespective of the location where the said services have been received. It is his submission that such services qualify as ‘input services’ as defined under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, irrespective of whether they have been received inside or outside the factory. To support this contention, he relied upon the following decisions: –

i. Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Belapur [2013 (32) STR 532 (Bom.)]

ii. Orient Paper Mills v. CCE & ST, Raipur [2016 (45) STR 178 (Tri. – Del.)]

4.2.1.The appellant has also made the following submissions in respect of the remaining input services which are mentioned below: –

Accordingly, it is submitted that the appellant is also eligible for CENVAT Credit of the remaining input services distributed by the ISDs.

4.3. Moreover, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that proceedings regarding eligibility of CENVAT Credit ought to have been initiated against the ISD. In the present case, proceedings having not been initiated against the ISD, it is contended that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on distribution by the ISD cannot be denied. To support this contention, he has relied on the following case-law: –

i. Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-VI [2024 (6) TMI 761 – CESTAT, Kolkata]

ii. Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 – CESTAT, New Delhi]

5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the Revenue supported the impugned orders.

6. Heard the parties and considered their submissions.

7. We find that the main issue in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit in respect of GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency services in case of FOR destination contracts or not.

7.1. The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Puducherry [2023 (12) TMI 1332 – CESTAT, Chennai (LB)] wherein it has been observed as under: –

“35. In the result, in a case where clearances of goods are against FOR contract basis, the authority needs to ascertain the ‘place of removal’ by applying the judgments of the Supreme Court in Emco and Roofit Industries, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Fritz Werner, and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board to determine the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the GTA Service upto the place of removal.”

7.2. Therefore, as the issue is no more res integra, we hold that the appellant is entitled for availment of CENVAT Credit on GTA services and clearing and forwarding agency service in case the good are sold on FOR basis. Accordingly, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.

8. We further take note of the fact that the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices issued by their ISD and admittedly, no proceedings had been initiated against the ISD. In these circumstances, the CENVAT Credit availed at the end of the appellant cannot be denied, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Indsil Energy Electrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. and S.Tax, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 944 – CESTAT, New Delhi] (Final Order No. 53555 of 2016 dated 12.09.2016 in Excise Appeal No. 52453 of 2016 – CESTAT, New Delhi]. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in the above case are reproduced below: –

“5. From the appeal records, I find that the appellant has submitted copies of the ISD invoices on the basis of which they have availed the Cenvat credit on various services. I also find that copies of these invoices were also submitted before the First Appellate Authority. However, I find that no specific findings has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this important issue. From the perusal of some of these sample invoices, I find that the credit on various services such as CHA, handling charges, insurance etc. have been availed for export of goods at the port of export. The credit for these services stand availed at the hands of the input service distributor. In the decision of the Tribunal in the case of United Phosphorus Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat II (supra) it stands decided that Revenue ought to have initiated proceedings against the input service distributor for availing Cenvat credits which are not covered under the definition of input services and not against the assessee availing the credit on the basis of ISD invoices. I reproduce below the relevant portion of the above decision:-

“6. In our considered view, the head office of the appellant, being a registered ISD is eligible to distribute service tax credit to any of their units/factory. On a specific query from the Bench, learned departmental representative informed that there was no proposal or proposition to issue show-cause notice to the input service distributor for wrong availment of Cenvat credit.

7. We find that the view or conclusion arrived at by the lower authority in denying the Cenvat credit is incorrect as there is no dispute of receipt of services. Our views also fortified by the decision of this Bench (supra) [2009 (239) E.L.T. 323 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] wherein this Bench had recorded the following findings:

“When we look at the functions of the input service distributor and the documents to be issued by him for passing on the credit, it becomes quite clear that the document issued by him for passing on the credit does not contain the nature of service provided and the details of services. It contains the service provider s details, distributor s details and the amount. Obviously the eligibility or otherwise of the service tax credit has to be examined at the end of input service distributor only. This is further supported by the fact that both Central Excise assessees and Service Tax assessees are under the regim e of self- assessment and therefore it is the assessee himself who has to specify that the credit availed by him is admissible. Therefore the input service distributor cannot say that he is not required to prove the eligibility or otherwise of the service tax credit once at the receiver s end which could be a branch or a factory of the distributor, no details would be available regarding the nature of service. Therefore the preliminary objection raised by the ld. Advocate has to be rejected and it has to be held that it is the responsibility of the jurisdictional officer with whom input service distributor has registered to decide the dispute regarding eligibility or otherwise of the service tax credit that the input service distributor has taken and proposes to pass on to others.”

8. In view of the foregoing and also on the factual matrix on the merits of the case, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed”

6. From the records, I find that no such proceedings is on record against the ISD. The dispute in the present proceedings has been initiated by the Revenue against the appellant for availing Cenvat credit on the basis of ISD invoices, on the allegations that the services for which such credits have been availed are not covered by the definition of input services. The proper assessee against whom such proceedings, if at all, ought to have been initiated against is the input service distributor. The proceedings for disallowing the credit would have to be set aside.”

8.1. Hence, we observe that the CENVAT Credit in respect of the said input services cannot be denied to the appellant.

9. In view of our above observations, we hold that the appellant had correctly taken CENVAT Credit and the denial of CENVAT Credit is therefore not sustainable. Accordingly, no penalty is imposable on the appellant.

10. In these terms, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court)