C/10682/2024 — MATCH GRAPHICS PVT LTD vs Customs (P) Jamnagar

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad

REGIONAL BENCH-COURT NO.3

CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10682 of 2024-DB

(Arising out of Order in Original JAM-CUSTM-PRV-COM-006-24-25 dated 04/10/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar) MATCH GRAPHICS PVT LTD ……..Appellant 497A, 498A, 419A, Radhe Industrial Estate,
Near Crown Laminates, Tajpur Road,
Changodar, Ahmedabad - 382415 VERSUS

Commissioner of CUSTOMS – Customs (P) Jamnagar

          ……..Respondent 

Seema Shulk Bhavan, Rajkot- Jamnagar Highway,
Near Victoria Bridge, Jamnagar-361001

WITH

CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10692 of 2024-DB

(Arising out of Order in Original JAM-CUSTM-PRV-COM-006-24-25 dated 04/10/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar) SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL ……..Appellant Director of M/s. Match Graphics Pvt. Ltd. 497A, 498A, 419A, Radhe Industrial Estate,
Near Crown Laminates, Tajpur Road,
Changodar, Ahmedabad - 382415 VERSUS
Commissioner of CUSTOMS –
Customs (P) Jamnagar

……..Respondent Seema Shulk Bhavan, Rajkot- Jamnagar Highway,
Near Victoria Bridge, Jamnagar-361001 AND

CUSTOMS Appeal No. 10693 of 2024-DB

(Arising out of Order in Original JAM-CUSTM-PRV-COM-006-24-25 dated 04/10/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar) SHRI SARWAN KUMAR SARAF

……..Appellant Proprietor of M/s. Saraf Sales Corporation, Broker of M/s. Match Graphics Pvt. Ltd. 101, Panchwati Corporative Society,
Hanuman Road, Ville Parle East,
Mumbai- 400 063 VERSUS
Commissioner of CUSTOMS –
Customs (P) Jamnagar

……..Respondent Seema Shulk Bhavan, Rajkot- Jamnagar Highway,
Near Victoria Bridge, Jamnagar-361001 APPEARANCE: Shri Manish Jain, Advocate appeared for the Appellant Shri Girish Nair, Assistant Commissioner (AR) appeared for the Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR
HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU

2

      C/10682,10692,10693/2024-DB 


                   Final Order No.12740-12742/2024 



                           DATE OF HEARING: 13.11.2024 
  DATE OF DECISION: 19.11.2024 

RAMESH NAIR
1.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-In- Original No. JAM-CUSTM-PRV-COM-006-24-25 dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar by M/s. Match Graphics Private Limited (Appellant company), Shri Anand Agrawal, Director of Appellant Company and Shri Sarwan Kumar Saraf, Proprietor of M/s. Saraf Sales Corporation Broker/Agent of appellant company. 1.1 Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant company is engaged in the manufacturing of Décor Paper which is used for enhancing appearance and durability of the surface. Shri Anand Agrawal is Director of Appellant Company and Shri Sarwan Kumar Saraf, Proprietor of M/s. Saraf Sales Corporation, Broker/Agent of Appellant Company. The major raw material for manufacturing of Décor paper is Uncoated printing paper/ Base Paper which are imported from China as well as procured from domestic markets. The Appellant imported the subject goods from M/s. King decor by interalia paying antidumping duty in terms of Sr. No. 1 of Notification No. 77/2021– Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021 and thereby discharging the Anti- Dumping Duty at the rate of $ 116 PMT as M/s. King decor is manufacturer of subject goods. Appellants issued Purchase Orders to M/s. King decor and all the sales invoices of subject goods are issued by M/s King decor to appellants. Full consideration for such imported goods have been paid to M/s King decor through normal banking channel. It is alleged by department in the SCN that invoices issued by M/s King decor and purchase orders contained code being “XH” which stands for goods manufactured by M/s. Xianhe Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China, whereas item codes of goods manufactured by M/s. King decor started with alphabets “KD”. That imported goods had the name of M/s. Xianhe Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China on the packing material and no markings/labelling/tapes or code of M/s. King decor, was found on the impugned goods. Department has also relied upon various emails sent by appellants to its domestic buyers wherein price was increased by appellants on the ground that anti-dumping duty is imposed. Based on above it is alleged that imported goods were manufactured by M/s. Xianhe Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China which attracts antidumping duty at the higher rate of 542 USD/ PMT as per Sr. No. 4 of Notification No.77/2021-Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021. For imposing penalties on individuals, it is alleged that the Shri Anand Agrawal, Director of

3

Appellant Company, along with Shri Sarwan Kumar Saraf, Proprietor of M/s. Saraf Sales Corporation Broker/Agent Appellant Company, arranged the documents namely commercial invoice and packing list purported to be issued by M/s. King decor and claimed to be manufactured by M/s. Kingdecor. Thus, they have evaded the antidumping duty by way of mis-declaring the name of producer/manufacturer of subject goods.
1.2 Ld. Commissioner of customs in the impugned order has held at para 34.8 of the adjudication order dated 4.10.2024 that subject goods were manufactured by M/s King decor with XH series on behalf of Xianhe and exported to Appellants. It is further observed at para 34.9 of the adjudication order that M/s King decor was doing job work on behalf of M/s Xianhe Co. Ltd. Ld. Commissioner vide adjudication order confirmed applicability of antidumping duty at the higher rate of 542 USD/PMT in terms of Sr. No. 4 of Notification No.77/2021-Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021. He imposed redemption fine and penalties on appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2.
Shri Manish Jain learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that Ld. Commissioner of customs after holding that subject goods are manufactured by M/s King decor ought to have dropped the proceeding initiated by SCN as applicable rate of antidumping duty is 116 USD / PMT for imported goods produced by the M/s. King decor.
2.1 He submits that without prejudice, Sr. No.1 to the Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) would be applicable in those cases also where goods are manufactured by M/s Kingdecor and supplied by Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe, because in DGTR final finding Notification dated 28.09.2021 based on which Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) is issued, Export price fixation considered M/s Kingdecor, Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe as one source of export. Further DGTR final finding notification dated 28.09.2021 clearly states that Kingdecor supplies material through Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe to India. Thus Sr. No. 1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) would cover goods which are manufactured by Kingdecor even if said manufactured goods were supplied by Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe. He though maintained that in fact, imported goods were manufactured by M/s Kingdecor. 2.2 He submits that as per in DGTR final finding Notification dated 28.09.2021, Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe are only traders and not even manufacturer of subject goods. The fact that they are being traders of imported goods which was manufactured by M/s Kingdecor was declared by M/s Kingdecor, Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe before DGTR, during course of

4

DGTR proceedings thus allegation of department in the present case that Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe are manufacturer of imported goods is completely baseless. For which he has cited replies of M/s Kingdecor, Xinahe and Zhejiang Xianhe filed before DGTR during antidumping investigation.
2.3 He further submits that Sr. No. 4 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) providing for antidumping duty at the rate of 542 USD/PMT is applicable only for those producers who have not participated during investigation by DGTR for which he has referred para 48 of DGTR final finding Notification dated 28.09.2021 which provides that export price is determined based on facts available on records for exporters/producers who have not participated during DGTR investigation and for them higher rate of antidumping duty is imposed. He also referred para 45 which provides that export price of goods manufactured by M/s Kingdecor regardless of fact that same is supplied through Xinahe and Zhejiang Xianhe is recorded to show that M/s Kingdecor, Xinahe and Zhejiang Xianhe participated in the proceeding before DGTR that too as one source of supply.
2.4 He submits that Ld. Commissioner while holding that M/s Kingdecor is job worker for Xinahe and Zhejiang Xianhe has travelled beyond the scope of SCN because whole case of department in the SCN was that imported goods were manufactured by Xinahe and Zhejiang Xianhe and not manufactured by M/s Kingdecor. Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has held that goods were not manufactured by Xinahe and Zhejiang. He conceded that imported goods were manufactured at plant of M/s Kingdecor. Thus, after having held that imported goods are manufactured by M/s Kingdecor he ought to have dropped the proceeding. In this regard, reliance is placed upon following decisions on the proposition that adjudication order cannot travel beyond scope of SCN: a) Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 (325) E.L.T. 632 (S.C.) b) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) c) Uni Well Exim Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 289 (Guj.)

2.5 He further submits that Antidumping duty notification/fiscal legislation must be interpreted strictly. Addition of words are not permitted while interpreting the notification. He submits that there is no dispute that imported goods are produced by M/s Kingdecor. Thus, Sr. No.1 of notification would be applicable in the present case. Ld. Commissioner vide

5

para 34.8 of impugned order has observed that if goods are manufactured

for and by M/s Kingdecor only in that case Sr. No. 1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) would apply. The Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) only provides that imported goods produced by M/s Kingdecor would attract Sr. No.1. of notification. Antidumping Notification does not uses the phrase “ manufactured for and by M/s Kingdecor”. Thus, addition of word “for and by M/s Kingdecor” is not permissible in law while interpreting the notification as notification has to be strictly interpreted. In this regards he relies upon following decisions: • Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company, 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) • KrishiUpajMandi Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Alwar, 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C.) • Salasar Fortune Marketing (I) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Kandla 2004 (166) E.L.T. 353 (Tri. -Mumbai)

2.6 He submits that in fact imported goods are manufactured by M/s Kingdecor in the present case thus Sr. No. 1 to Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) would be applicable to imported goods for which he relies upon Production reports and Certificate dated 05.07.2024 issued by M/s. Kingdecor to submit that Base Paper/Uncoated printing paper with series “XH” and “KD” are manufactured by M/s Kingdecor. He highlighted that computerized production report of M/s Kingdecor’s plant submitted by Shri Saraf during his statements dated 12.07.2024 shows that paper rolls which were given “XH” Item Code while there production in M/s. Kingdecor plant were sold and supplied to Appellants because the production report also contains details like the number given to each of such rolls in their plant at the time of production. The identification number of each of such rolls carrying “XH” Item code can be compared to the details of Item Code number and roll number appearing in their commercial invoice issued to Appellants as well as with the container-wise packing lists issued to Appellants while selling and supplying these goods. Further, the Certificate dated 05.07.2024 issued by M/s. Kingdecor also clarifies the factual position about all consignments of uncoated printing paper sold to Appellants under commercial invoices of M/s. Kingdecor has been produced by them in their plant. It is certified that all the goods so sold to Appellants with Item Code “XH” were produced by M/s Kingdecor in their plant.

6

2.7 He submits that in any case, mere use of particular code cannot be reason to hold that goods are manufactured by a particular entity. The department has not provided any evidence that imported goods are manufactured by M/s. Xianhe and M/s. Zhejiang.

2.8 He submits that POs and corresponding proforma invoices, commercial invoices and packing lists issued by M/s. Kingdecor are not doubted by the Revenue. Moreover, their documents have item code “XH” and their genuineness as well as authenticity is admitted by the Revenue.

2.9 He further submits that mere the packing material is not a sufficient proof or evidence for deciding the manufacturer of the imported goods. Department has no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that item code “XH” was only used by M/s. Xianhe and M/s. Zhejiang. Moreover, no specific enquiry was conducted in regards of whether the goods sold and supplied by them to Appellants were actually produced/manufactured by them or otherwise.

2.10 He relies upon clarification issued by M/s. Kingdecor vide Certificate dated 05.07.2024 that M/s. Xianhe Co. Ltd. has 50% stakes in M/s. Kingdecor and therefore there is arrangement for using common Item Code “XH”, and for declaring “XH” Item Code on packing materials and tapes owing to the arrangement between M/s. Kingdecor and M/s. Xianhe, He also referred the content of letter by the Consulate General of India to show that imported goods are manufactured by M/s Kingdecor.

2.11 He further submits that with regards to location of two plants of M/s Kingdecor it is clarified under their certificate dated 31.05.2022 that M/s Kingdecor have two plants, one having been located at No.158, Tongjiang Road, Shenjia Development Zone of Quzhou City, Zhejiang 324022, China and the order having at No. 20 south Tainhu Road, Qujiang District, Quzhou city, Zhejiang 324022 China. The above-mentioned addresses when compared to the address of M/s. Kingdecor appearing on the proformainvoice and other import documents establish that fact that M/s. Kingdecor has been manufacturing these goods for years and they have plant with machines for production of decorative paper is a well-established and well documented fact.

7

2.12 He submits that emails sent to domestic customers are not relevant evidence to show that imported goods are not manufactured by M/s Kingdecor as it is evident that M/s Xianhe is only trader and not manufacturer of imported goods. In any case such emails are only marketing gimmick.He submits that without prejudice to above submissions, it is settled law that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute evidence.

2.13 He relies on cross examination report of statements of Shri Jignesh Shah, Proprietor of M/s. Shah International Services, Mumbai and Shri Sarwan Kumar Saraf Proprietor of M/s. Saraf Sales Corporation which clearly state that Item Code “XH” is also used by M/s. Kingdecor, and “XH” series of paper rolls were regularly sold by M/s. Kingdecor.

2.14 He further submits that extended period is not invokable and goods are not liable to confiscation, penalty and redemption fine is not imposable in the present case. Since the demand on the Appellant Company is liable to be set aside, the penalties imposed on the Shri Anand Agarwal, Director of the Appellant Company and Shri Sarwan Kumar Saraf, Agent/broker of the Appellant Company are also liable to be set aside. 3. Shri Girish Nair, learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue opposed the contentions of the appellant and reiterated the findings made in the impugned order by the Ld. Commissioner. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides and perused the records 4.1 We find that the issue in the present case pertains to applicable rate of anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 77/2021– Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021 on imported Uncoated Printing Paper/Base Paper. Appellants have claimed Sr. No. 1 of Notification No.77/2021-Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021 which provides for antidumping duty at the rate of 116 USD/ PMT for imported goods produced by M/s. Kingdecor (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd. On the other hand, according to department in the SCN the applicable rate of ADD would be 542 USD/PMT interms of Sr. No. 4 of Notification No.77/2021- Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021 because according to department imported goods were not produced by the M/s. Kingdecor and same were
produced by M/s. Xianhe Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China and M/s. Zhejiang Xianhe New Materials Co. Ltd.

8

4.2 We find Admittedly, Ld. Commissioner has vide para 34.8 of the impugned order has noted that subject goods were manufactured by M/s Kingdecor with XH series. Thus, the finding of fact is recorded that imported goods were manufactured by M/s Kingdecor, then Sr. No. 1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus. (ADD), dated 27-12-2021would be available to appellants which provides antidumping duty at the rate of 116 USD/PMT. On this ground alone impugned order is liable to be set aside. For ease of reference, relevant part of notification is extracted and reproduced as under:

[Notification No. 77/2021-Cus. (ADD), dated 27-12-2021] Anti-dumping duty on Décor Paper, originating in, or exported from, People’s Republic of China

---

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, read with rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government, after considering the aforesaid final findings of the designated authority, hereby imposes on the subject goods, the description of which is specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling under tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as specified in the corresponding entry in column (2), originating in the country as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4), exported from the country as specified in the corresponding entry in column (5), produced by the producers as specified in the corresponding entry in column (6), and imported into India, an anti-dumping duty at the rate equal to the amount as specified in the corresponding entry in column (7), in the currency as specified in the corresponding entry in column (9) and as per unit of measurement as specified in the corresponding entry in column (8), of the said Table, namely :- TABLE S. No . Tarif f Ite m Descri p-tion* Countr y of Origin Country of Export Producer Amo -unt Uni t Currenc y (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1. 480 Decor People’ Any Kingdeco 116 MT US

9

5 91 00, 480 2 20 90 Paper s Republi c of China country includin g People’ s Republi c of China r (Zhejian g) Co., Ltd. Dollar

---

4805 91 00, 4802 20 90 Decor Paper People’s Republic of China Any country including People’s Republic of China Any other than S. Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 542 MT US Dollar

From the above, it is evident that Sr. No.1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus. (ADD), dated 27-12-2021would be applicable for imported goods produced by M/s Kingdecor. Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order has given categorical finding that imported goods are produced by M/s Kingdecor, thus, appellants are entitled for Sr. No.1 to the Notification No. 77/2021-Cus (ADD) dated 27-12-2021.

4.3 We find that Ld. Commissioner vide para 34.8 of impugned order has however observed that if goods are manufactured for and by M/s Kingdecor only in that case Sr. No. 1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus. (ADD), dated 27- 12-2021 would apply. Ld. Commissioner has not correctly interpreted Sr. No. 1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus. (ADD), dated 27-12-2021 he has added the non-existent words as Sr. No.1 of Notification No. 77/2021-Cus. (ADD), dated 27-12-2021does not uses the phrase “ manufactured for and by” it only uses the words “produced by” M/s Kingdecor. Thus, addition of word “for and by” M/s Kingdecor is not permissible in law while interpreting the notification. In this regards decision of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company, 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) held as under: “19. The well-settled principle is that when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the

10

words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the Legislature. In Kanai Lal Sur v. ParamnidhiSadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907, it was held that if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. 20. In applying rule of plain meaning any hardship and inconvenience cannot be the basis to alter the meaning to the language employed by the legislation. This is especially so in fiscal statutes and penal statutes. Nevertheless, if the plain language results in absurdity, the Court is entitled to determine the meaning of the word in the context in which it is used keeping in view the legislative purpose [Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub- Division, Gadag v. MathapathiBasavannewwa, 1995 (6) SCC 355]. Not only that, if the plain construction leads to anomaly and absurdity, the Court having regard to the hardship and consequences that flow from such a provision can even explain the true intention of the legislation. Having observed general principles applicable to statutory interpretation, it is now time to consider rules of interpretation with respect to taxation. 21. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation. The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocent might become victims of discretionary decision-making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265 of the Constitution [265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law - No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.] prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when competent Legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the Legislature.” 4.4 We find that in DGTR final finding Notification dated 28.09.202, Export price fixation for deciding antidumping duty was decided by considering M/s Kingdecor, Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe as one source. DGTR notification clearly states that Kingdecor also supplies material through Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe to India.
4.5 We find that in replies to DGTR, M/s Kingdecor has clearly stated that they also supplied material to India through traders namely Xinahe and Zhejiang Xianhe. Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe also stated that they do not produce material subject to antidumping duty but they purchase it from M/s

11

Kingdécor and supplied to India. Thus, the assumption in the SCN that imported goods are manufactured by Xianhe and Zhejiang Xianhe are completely baseless.
4.6 Without prejudice, we find that imported goods are indeed manufactured by M/s Kingdecor which is evident from following documents:
4.6.1 Certificate dated 13.07.2024 issued by M/s Kingdecor clearly states that XH series of imported goods are manufactured by them.

4.6.2) Letter dated 7.4.2023 issued by consulate general of India, Guangzhou states that imported goods were manufactured by M/s Kingdecor and old tape was used for packing.

12

13

4.6.3 Certificate dated 05.07.2024 issued by M/s. Kingdecor also clarifies the factual position about all consignments of uncoated printing paper sold to Appellants under commercial invoices of M/s. Kingdecor has been produced by them in their plant, and the attachment to this certificate refers to each of the commercial invoices under which they sold the goods to Appellants. It is certified that all the goods so sold to Appellants with Item Code “XH” were produced by them in their plant.

14

15

16

4.6.4 Shri Jignesh shah during cross examination vide his statement dated 12.07.2024 has stated that M/s. Shah International Services have also sold goods produced by M/s. Kingdecor carrying “XH” Item codes. Further, Shri JigneshShah has confirmed that M/s. Kingdecor were selling paper under “XH” Item Code regularly through another distributor in India, and that distributor was M/s. Saraf Sales Corporation of Shri SarwanSaraf. Shri SarwanSaraf has also during his cross examination vide his statement dated 12.07.2024 confirmed that Item Codes of “KD” and “XH” are used for paper produced by M/s. Kingdecor. That computerized production reports are prepared in the plant of M/s. Kingdecor in normal course and such a production report contains details for each day in respect of number of paper

17

rolls produced on a particular machine, net weight of the goods produced, paper model, the time of actual production and material code number i.e. the Item Code.

18

19

20

21

4.7 We find that emails sent to domestic customers informing about levy of antidumping duty are not reliable evidence to prove that imported goods are manufactured by M/s Xianhe and not by M/s Kingdecor. Moreover, M/s Xianhe is only trader and not manufacturer of imported goods. 4.8 We find that the above evidences prove beyond doubt that imported goods were indeed produced by M/s Kingdecor at their plant.

22

4.9 We find that appellants are entitled to Sr. No. 1 of Notification No.77/2021-Customs (ADD) dated 27.12.2021 which provides antidumping duty at rate of 116 USD/PMT therefore, customs duty demand is set aside. Imported goods are not liable for confiscation. Penalties on all three appellants are set aside.
5. As a result, We set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals filed by appellants with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2024)

(RAMESH NAIR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(RAJU) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Bharvi