Commr.Of Cen.Exic.Ii Bangalore vs M/S Osnar Chemical P.Ltd

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, -- APPELLANT

BANGALORE-II

VERSUS

M/S OSNAR CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. -- RESPONDENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5633 OF 2009

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7142 OF 2010

JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:

1. This batch of appeals by the revenue, under Section 35L(b) of

the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") arises out of

final orders dated 23rd December, 2008 in Appeal No.

E/379/2007; 25th September, 2008 in Appeal Nos. Excise/522 &

523/2007 and 28th October, 2009 in Appeal No. E/225/2009

1

passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate

Tribunal South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (for short "the

Tribunal"). By the impugned orders in cross-appeals by the

revenue and the assessee, the Tribunal has held that the

mechanical mixing of polymer with heated bitumen does not

amount to manufacture of a new commercially identifiable

product and therefore, is not exigible to Excise duty under the

Act.

2. Since these three appeals involve a common question of law,

these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

However, in order to appreciate the controversy, the facts

emerging from C.A. Nos. 4055-4056 of 2009, which was treated

as the lead case, are being adverted to.

The respondent in this appeal (for short "the assessee") is

engaged in the supply of Polymer Modified Bitumen (for short

"PMB"). We may note that in one of the appeals (C.A.

No.5633/2009), the assessee additionally supplies Crumbled

Rubber Modified Bitumen (for short "CRMB"), stated to be a

different kind of modifier. The assessee entered into a contract

with one M/s Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (for short "Afcons") for

2

supply of PMB at their work site at Solur Village, Viswanathpura

Post, Bangalore. As per the agreement, the base bitumen and

certain additives were to be supplied by Afcons to the assessee

directly at the site, where the assessee, in its mobile polymer

modification plant, was required to heat the bitumen at a

temperature of 1600C with the help of burners. To this hot

bitumen, 1% Polymer and 0.2% additives were added under

constant agitation, for improving its quality by increasing its

softening point and penetration. The process of agitation was to

be continued for a period of 12 to 18 hours till the mixture

becomes homogenous and the required properties were met.

The said bitumen in its hot agitated condition was mixed with

stone aggregates which was then used for road construction. The

resultant product was considered to be a superior quality binder

with enhanced softening point, penetration, ductility, viscosity

and elastic recovery.

3. `Bitumen' is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 271320.00

and `Polymers' are classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading

390190.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Tariff Act"). The relevant tariff items read as

follows:

3 "Tariff Item Description of goods

2713 Petroleum coke, petroleum

bitumen and other residues of

petroleum oil or of oils obtained

from bituminous minerals.

2713 20 00 Petroleum bitumen

2715 Bituminous mixtures based on

natural asphalt, on natural

bitumen, on petroleum bitumen, on

mineral tar or on mineral tar pitch

(for example, bituminous mastics,

cut backs)

2715 00 90 Other

3901 Polymers of ethylene, in primary

forms

3901 90 Other "

4. The assessee had been paying Central Excise duty on the PMB

processed at their factory in Mumbai but had not paid the same

for the conversion done at the work site. Consequently, a show

cause notice was issued to them by the Commissioner of

Central Excise, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the

Commissioner"), demanding duty in respect of PMB falling

under sub-heading 271500.90 of the Tariff Act, for the period

from 18th August 2004 to 19th September 2006. The

Commissioner adjudicated upon the said show cause notice

4

and vide Order-in-original, dated 23rd April 2007, held that the

aforesaid process carried out by the assessee amounted to

manufacture of PMB in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act,

irrespective of the fact whether such process was carried out

on their own account or on job work basis and therefore, was

dutiable. He accordingly, confirmed the demand indicated in

the show cause notice. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed

an appeal before the Tribunal. Reversing the decision of the

Commissioner, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that

since PMB cannot be bought and sold in the market as it is fit

for use only in a molten condition, at a temperature around

1600C and resultantly cannot be stored unless kept in

continuous agitated state @ 1000C so as to avoid separation of

polymer and bitumen; the process carried out by the assessee

does not amount to manufacture. A similar view has been

expressed by the Tribunal in other orders which are the

subject matter of these appeals by the revenue.

5. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the revenue,

vehemently argued that having regard to the nature of the

process involved, PMB and CRMB are different from bitumen.

According to the learned counsel, ordinary bitumen is heated

5

upto a temperature of 2000C, in the Polymer modification plant;

to this heated mixture, polymer is added and samples are

taken; if the samples, are found to be satisfactory, additives are

added and the PMB is either stored or dispatched. It was

submitted that the end products, viz. PMB and CRMB are

different from bitumen, inasmuch as polymers and additives

are the raw materials consumed in the process of manufacture

of the said final products and are therefore, covered by the

definition of the term "manufacture" in Section 2(f) of the Act.

To buttress his submission that PMB and CRMB are exigible to

Excise duty, both falling under a specific entry, learned

counsel referred to the Tariff Act, whereunder, while bitumen

is classifiable under Chapter Sub heading 271320.00, and

polymer is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 390190.00,

the finished products, PMB and CRMB are classifiable under

Chapter Sub Heading 271500.90. In support of his submission

that PMB and CRMB are commercially known in the market for

being bought and sold and therefore, satisfy the test of

marketability which is one of the essential conditions for the

purpose of levy of Excise duty, learned counsel commended us

to the decisions of this Court in Medley Pharmaceuticals

6

Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,

Daman1 and Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs. Commnr. Of

Central Excise, Mumbai2. It was also urged that Circular No.

88/1/87-CX.3, dated 16th June, 1987, issued by the Department

of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, clarifying that a slight

modification of the grade or quality of bitumen, brought about

by the process of air blowing to duty paid bitumen did not

amount to manufacture, was wrongly relied upon by the

Tribunal as it had subsequently been modified by Circular No.

88/1/88-CX.3, dated 1st July, 1988, wherein the said department

had clarified that duty would be chargeable on blown-grade

bitumen.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

assessees, led by Mr. S.K. Bagaria, senior advocate, while

supporting the decision of the Tribunal, fervently submitted

that based on the documents, evidence and materials on

record, the Tribunal has found, as a fact, that the process of

mixing an insignificant dose of polymer with duty paid bitumen

only enhanced the quality of bitumen and did not amount to

manufacture and therefore, in the absence of any plea of

1 2011 (263) E.L.T. 641 (SC)

2 2010 (260) E.L.T. 338 (SC)

7

perversity, the finding does not warrant any interference by

this Court. In support of the proposition, learned senior

counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Ducksole (I)

Ltd. & Ors.3 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III

Vs. Uni Products India Ltd. & Ors.4.

7. Learned senior counsel vehemently argued that the

mechanical process of adding polymer and additives to heated

bitumen to bring into existence the so-called new substance,

known as PMB, did not amount to `manufacture' in terms of

Section 2(f) of the Act. It was explained that by the said

process, only the grade or quality of bitumen is improved by

raising its softening point and penetration, for improving the

quality of the road; but even with the improved quality,

bitumen remained bitumen with the same end use. It was the

say of the learned counsel that a mere improvement in the

quality did not amount to manufacture, as `manufacture' takes

place only when there is a transformation of raw materials into

a new and different article, having a distinctive name,

character and use, which is not the case here as the end use of

3 (2005) 10 SCC 462

4 (2009) 9 SCC 295

8

both the articles remained the same. In support of the

proposition, learned senior counsel commended us to a

plethora of decisions of this Court, including M/s.

Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax

Officer, Kurnool5, Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat

Vs. Pan Pipes Resplendents Limited6, Crane Betel Nut

Powder Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central

Excise, Tirupathi & Anr.7 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Delhi

Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.8.

8. It was contended that since the period involved in these

appeals is post substitution of clause (f) in Section 2 of the Act

by Act 5 of 1986, which gives an extended meaning to the

expression "manufacture" by including in terms of sub-clause

(ii) to clause (f), any process "which is specified in relation to

any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the First Schedule

to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting

to manufacture", the said provision would be applicable.

However, wherever the legislature intended to give an

extended or artificial meaning to the said expression in

5 1961 (2) SCR 14 : AIR 1961 SC 412

6 (2006) 1 SCC 777

7 (2007) 4 SCC 155

8 1977 (1) ELT (J199) (SC)

9

relation to any goods, it has clearly specified it. According to

the learned counsel, since the addition of polymer or additives

to the bitumen has not been specified in the Section or Chapter

notes of the Tariff Schedule as amounting to manufacture, the

amended definition is of no avail to the revenue. In support of

the contention, heavy reliance was placed on the decisions of

this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi-I

Vs. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd.9 and Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. Vs.

Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur10.

9. Relying on the two afore-mentioned Circulars, F.No. 88/1/87-

CX.3, dated 16th June 1987 and F.No.88/1/88-CX.3, dated 1st

July 1988, issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of

Finance, clarifying that blown grade bitumen produced by

oxidation of straight grade bitumen is not liable to duty;

learned senior counsel submitted that the present case is on a

much better footing than the blown grade bitumen, inasmuch

as, unlike oxidation, where chemical change takes place, in the

mixing of polymer and bitumen, no chemical change in

bitumen takes place, and therefore, PMB cannot be subjected

to Excise duty as a new commercial commodity. Additionally,

9 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (SC)

10 2004 (174) E.L.T. 145 (SC)

10

reliance was also placed on Circular No.623/14/2002-CX.,

dated 25th February, 2002, wherein the Central Board of Excise

and Customs has clarified that the process of preparation of

Hot Asphalt Mix used in making roads does not amount to

manufacture as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Act.

10. It was argued that merely because bitumen (the basic material)

and PMB (the end material) are specified under two different

headings, it cannot be presumed that the process of obtaining

PMB automatically constituted manufacture, unless in fact there

has been a transformation of bitumen into a new and different

product or alternatively, the Section Notes or Chapter Notes

created a deeming fiction by providing an artificial or

extended meaning to the expression `manufacture' in respect

of the goods in question. In support of the proposition, learned

counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in S.R.

Tissues Pvt. Ltd (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise,

Chennai-II Vs. Tarpaulin International11, Shyam Oil Cake

Ltd. (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs.

Lalji Godhoo & Co.12, Commissioner of Central Excise Vs.

11 2010 (256) E.L.T. 481 (SC)

12 2007 (216) E.L.T. 514 (SC)

11

Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.13 and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur14, wherein it was held

that merely because the raw materials and the finished product

fall under two different tariff entries, it cannot be presumed

that the process of obtaining the finished product from such

raw materials automatically constituted manufacture.

11. Learned counsel also strenuously urged that even if it is

assumed that the said process amounted to manufacture, still

PMB cannot be subjected to excise as it is not commercially

marketable. It was argued that for levy of Excise duty, the twin

conditions of `manufacture' and `marketability' have to be

satisfied cumulatively. In support of the proposition, reliance

was placed on the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Zinc

Ltd. (supra), Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) and Lalji

Godhoo & Co. (supra). Learned counsel also contended that

the burden to prove that the process in question constitutes

manufacture and that the goods so manufactured are

marketable as new goods, known to the market, lies on the

revenue and the same has not been discharged in the present

case. To support the contention, reliance was placed on Lalji

13 (2006) 8 SCC 314

14 (2005) 2 SCC 662

12

Godhoo & Co. (supra), Metlex (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner

of Central Excise, New Delhi15; Hindustan Poles Corpn. Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta16 and HPL

Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Chandigarh17.

12. Lastly, the learned counsel stressed that in the light of the

decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise &

Customs Vs. Tikatar Industries18, Commissioner of Central

Excise, Navi Mumbai Vs. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products

Private Limited19 and Commissioner of Central Excise,

Mumbai Vs. Tikitar Industries20, the issue raised by the

revenue in these appeals is no longer res-integra, and

therefore, all the appeals deserved to be dismissed.

13. Mr. Laxmi Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the

assessee in Appeal No.7142 of 2010, while adopting the

arguments advanced by Mr. Bagaria, emphasised that apart

from the fact that in his case the assessee was mixing the

additives at the site and not in a factory, the percentage of

15 (2005) 1 SCC 271

16 (2006) 4 SCC 85

17 (2006) 5 SCC 208

18 2006 (202) E.L.T. 215 (S.C.)

19 2006 (202) E.L.T. 213 (S.C.)

20 2010 (253) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.)

13

polymer or additives added to bitumen was inconsequential

for determination of the issue at hand, as the predominant test

was whether the treated bitumen underwent any change in its

characteristics so as to acquire a new commercial identity. In

support, learned counsel referred to McNicol & Anr. Vs.

Pinch21, wherein Darling J., delivering the concurring majority

opinion observed that:

"You can only make one thing out of another. I

think the essence of making or of

manufacturing is that what is made shall be

different thing from that out of which it is

made."

In other words, the counsel submitted that the same test namely,

whether the product that emerges is something different from the

goods with which it is made, was observed to be the determining

factor. If bitumen, after its processing with additives and

modifiers, remains bitumen; although it is known as PMB, then no

new product emerges. It was asserted that in the present case, the

revenue had failed to prove that with the addition of polymer or

additives, bitumen had undergone any change in its chemical

composition and commercial identity. According to the learned

counsel, if the treated bitumen is not kept at a particular

21 1906 (2) K.B. 352

14

temperature, bitumen and polymer get separated and revert to

their original state, which shows that no chemical reaction takes

place when both the commodities are mixed.

14. Thus, the question which falls for consideration in all these

appeals is whether the addition and mixing of polymers and

additives to base bitumen results in the manufacture of a new

marketable commodity and as such exigible to Excise duty?

15. The expression `manufacture' defined in Section 2(f) of the Act,

inter alia includes any process which is specified in relation to

any goods in the Section or Chapter Notes of First Schedule to

the Tariff Act. It is manifest that in order to bring a process in

relation to any goods within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Act,

the same is required to be recognised by the legislature as

manufacture in relation to such goods in the Section notes or

Chapter notes of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act. Therefore,

in order to bring petroleum bitumen, falling under CSH

27132000, within the extended or deemed meaning of the

expression `manufacture', so as to fall under CSH 271500900,

the process of its treatment with polymers or additives or with

any other compound is required to be recognised by the

15

legislature as manufacture under the Chapter notes or Section

notes to Chapter 27.

16. Dealing with the aspect of extended or artificial meaning of the

expression `manufacture' in Section 2(f) of the Act in Shyam

Oil Cake Ltd. (supra), this Court had held as under :-

"16. Thus, the amended definition enlarges the

scope of manufacture by roping in processes which

may or may not strictly amount to manufacture

provided those processes are specified in the

Section or Chapter notes of the Tariff Schedule as

amounting to manufacture. It is clear that the

Legislature realised that it was not possible to put in

an exhaustive list of various processes but that

some methodology was required for declaring that

a particular process amounted to manufacture. The

language of the amended Section 2(f) indicates that

what is required is not just specification of the

goods but a specification of the process and a

declaration that the same amounts to manufacture.

Of course, the specification must be in relation to

any goods.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX XXX

24. In this case, neither in the Section Note nor in

the Chapter Note nor in the Tariff Item do we find

any indication that the process indicated is to

amount to manufacture. To start with the product

was edible vegetable oil. Even after the refining, it

remains edible vegetable oil. As actual

manufacture has not taken place, the deeming

provision cannot, be brought into play in the

16

absence of it being specifically stated that the

process amounts to manufacture."

17. Then again, in S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a question arose

whether slitting and cutting of toilet tissue paper on aluminium

foil amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act.

Answering the question in the negative, this Court had

observed thus :-

"15.....In order to make Section 2(f) applicable, the

process of cutting/slitting is required to be

recognized by the legislature as a manufacture

under the chapter note or the section note to

Chapter 48. For example, the cutting and slitting of

thermal paper is deemed to be "manufacture"

under Note 13 to Chapter 48. Similarly, Note 3 to

Chapter 37 refers to cutting and slitting as

amounting to manufacture in the case of

photographic goods. However, slitting and cutting

of toilet tissue paper on aluminium foil has not been

treated as a manufacture by the legislature. In the

circumstance, Section 2(f) of the Act has no

application."

18. In the present case, a plain reading of the Schedule to the Act

makes it clear that no such process or processes have been

specified in the Section notes or Chapter notes in respect of

petroleum bitumen falling under Tariff Item 27132000 or even

in respect of bituminous mixtures falling under Tariff Item

27150090 to indicate that the said process amounts to

17

manufacture. Thus, it is evident that the said process of adding

polymers and additives to the heated bitumen to get a better

quality bitumen, viz. PMB or CRMB, cannot be given an

extended meaning under the expression manufacture in terms

of Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act.

19. We may now examine whether the process in question,

otherwise amounts to manufacture under the expansive Section

2(f) of the Act. It is trite to state that "manufacture" can be said

to have taken place only when there is transformation of raw

materials into a new and different article having a different

identity, characteristic and use. It is well settled that mere

improvement in quality does not amount to manufacture. It is

only when the change or a series of changes take the

commodity to a point where commercially it can no longer be

regarded as the original commodity but is instead recognized

as a new and distinct article that manufacture can be said to

have taken place. In this behalf the following observations by

the Constitution Bench of this Court in Tungabhadra

Industries (supra) are quite apposite :

"In our opinion, the learned Judges of the High

Court laid an undue emphasis on the addition by

18

way of the absorption of the hydrogen atoms in

the process of hardening and on the consequent

inter-molecular changes in the oil. The addition of

the hydrogen atoms was effected in order to

saturate a portion of the oleic and linoleic

constituents of the oil and render the oil more

stable thus improving its quality and utility. But

neither mere absorption of other matter, nor inter-

molecular changes necessarily affect the identity

of a substance as ordinarily understood............

The change here is both additive and inter-

molecular, but yet it could hardly be said that

rancid groundnut oil is not groundnut oil. It would

undoubtedly be very bad groundnut oil but still it

would be groundnut oil and if so it does not seem

to accord with logic that when the quality of the oil

is improved in that its resistance to the natural

processes of deterioration through oxidation is

increased, it should be held not to be oil."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

20. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), yet another

Constitution Bench, exploring the concept of manufacture

echoed the following views :

"14......The word `manufacture' used as a verb is

generally understood to mean as "bringing into

existence a new substance" and does not mean

merely "to produce some change in a substance",

however minor in consequence the change may be.

This distinction is well brought about in a passage

thus quoted in Permanent Edition of Words and

Phrases, Vol. 26, from an American judgment. The

passage runs thus:-

"Manufacture implies a change, but every

change is not manufacture and yet every

change of an article is the result of

19

treatment, labour and manipulation. But

something more is necessary and there

must be transformation; a new and different

article must emerge having a distinctive

name, character or use."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

21. In S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the issue for consideration

was whether the process of unwinding, cutting and slitting to

sizes of jumbo rolls into toilet rolls, napkins and facial tissue

papers amounted to manufacture. While holding that the said

process did not amount to manufacture this Court inter-alia,

held as under :

"12.....However, the end-use of the tissue

paper in the jumbo rolls and the end-use of the

toilet rolls, the table napkins and the facial

tissues remains the same, namely, for

household or sanitary use. The predominant

test in such a case is whether the characteristics

of the tissue paper in the jumbo roll

enumerated above is different from the

characteristics of the tissue paper in the form of

table napkin, toilet roll and facial tissue. In the

present case, the Tribunal was right in holding

that the characteristics of the tissue paper in the

jumbo roll are not different from the

characteristics of the tissue paper, after slitting

and cutting, in the table napkins, in the toilet

rolls and in the facial tissues."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

20

22. In Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue

(Taxes), Ernakulam Vs. Pio Food Packers22, a three Judge

Bench of this Court, while deciding whether conversion of

pineapple fruit into pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans

amounted to manufacture, observed as follows:-

"4......Commonly, manufacture is the end

result of one or more processes through

which the original commodity is made to pass.

The nature and extent of processing may vary

from one case to another, and indeed there

may be several stages of processing and

perhaps a different kind of processing at each

stage. With each process suffered, the

original commodity experiences a change.

But it is only when the change, or a series of

changes, take the commodity to the point

where commercially it can no longer be

regarded as the original commodity but

instead is recognized as a new and distinct

article that a manufacture can be said to take

place. Where there is no essential difference

in identity between the original commodity

and the processed article it is not possible to

say that one commodity has been consumed

in the manufacture of another. Although it has

undergone a degree of processing, it must be

regarded as still retaining its original identity.

(Emphasis supplied by us)"

23. Having considered the matter on the touchstone of the

aforesaid legal position, we are of the view that the process of

mixing polymers and additives with bitumen does not amount

to manufacture. Both the lower authorities have found as a fact

22 1980 (6) E.L.T. 343 (SC)

21

that the said process merely resulted in the improvement of

quality of bitumen. Bitumen remained bitumen. There was no

change in the characteristics or identity of bitumen and only its

grade or quality was improved. The said process did not result

in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a

different identity, characteristic and use. The end use also

remained the same, namely for mixing of aggregates for

constructing the roads.

24. We also find substance in the contention urged on behalf of the

assessee that the answer to the issue at hand stands concluded

by the dismissal of the Civil Appeals filed by the revenue

against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of

Central Excise, Vadodara Vs. Tikitar Industries23. In that case

the dispute was whether the process relating to improvement

of the quality of bitumen by raising its softening point and

penetration amounted to manufacture of a new and different

commodity. The process involved in improving the quality of

bitumen was oxidation, which converted straight grade

bitumen into air blown bitumen. In revenue's appeal the

Tribunal had inter-alia held as under :

23 2000 (118) E.L.T. 468 (Tri.)

22

"19. The duty paid bitumen received by the

Assessee is boiled so that foreign substances

like sand and stone settle down; thereafter

the air is blown into the material for

improving the quality of the bitumen by

raising the softening point and penetration;

this makes the bitumen suitable for intended

application. It is seen from the process

undertaken by the Assessees that only the

quality of the product which has already

suffered duty is improved......"

(Emphasis supplied by us)

As aforesaid, revenue's appeal was dismissed by this Court vide

order dated 2nd August, 2006 in Tikatar Industries (supra).

25. We therefore, hold that PMB or CRMB cannot be treated as

bituminous mixtures falling under CSH 27150090 and shall

continue to be classified under CSH 27132000 pertaining to

tariff for petroleum bitumen.

26. In view of the opinion expressed above, we deem it

unnecessary to deal with the other grounds urged on behalf of

both the sides.

27. For the foregoing reasons, no ground is made out for our

interference with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal

in all the appeals mentioned in paragraph 1 supra. The

23

appeals, being bereft of any merit, are dismissed accordingly,

with no order as to costs.

...........................................

(D.K. JAIN, J.)

............................................

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 13, 2012.

RS

24