Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Defence Land Systems India Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi

2017 (10) TMI 554 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Manufacture - bullet-proofing activity undertaken by the appellant - job-work - It was alleged that as the bullet proofing was done by a division of Mahindra & Mahindra, the cost of bullet proofing should be included in the value of base vehicle cleared by Mahindra& Mahindra in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 as the said activity amounts to manufacture. It was alleged that the activity amounts to manufacture and cost of bullet proofing was to be added to the cost of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd no duty is payable by the appellant. - With regard to Mahindra Scorpio and Mahindra Bus, we find that the process undertaken by the appellant involves the removal of body shell of the vehicle and reinforcing the same with bullet proofing sheets from the inside, strengthening the platform by welding iron studs on the weak joints of the platform and replacement of coils and shock absorbers so as to enable the platform to bear the increased weight of the base vehicle after bullet proofing. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orpio and the Bus remains the Bus after bullet proofing and therefore, it cannot be said that the activity of bullet proofing amounts to manufacture. Accordingly, the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Merely few additions do not constitute a production or manufacture - activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. - The adjudication order is beyond the scope of show cause notice with regard to the classification proposed in the show c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dvocate Sh. Dinesh Agarwal & Sh. Anik Shah, Advocates for the appellants Shri Atul Handa, AR for the respondent ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of duty holding that bullet-proofing activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is doing the bullet-proofing activity on the vehicle manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra on job work basis. The appellant undertake .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

shell of the vehicle and reinforcing the same with bulletproof sheets, strengthening the platform by welding iron studs on the weak joints of the platform and replacement of coils and shock absorbers so as to enable the platform to bear the increased weight of the base vehicle after bullet proofing. The body shell is then reinstalled on the platform and the floor is covered with a ballistic carpet. The glass is also changed to thicker bullet proof glass. These vehicles are also sold to defence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2003, the Revenue started enquiries as the process of bullet proofing of the motor vehicle known as Mahindra Rakshak (Mahindra Bolero Jeep) amounts to manufacture or not. It was alleged that as the bullet proofing was done by a division of Mahindra & Mahindra, the cost of bullet proofing should be included in the value of base vehicle cleared by Mahindra& Mahindra in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 as the said activity amounts to manufacture. It was alleged .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmissioner (Appeals) reported in 2010 (262) ELT 366 (Tr.) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court reported in 2016 (334) ELT 193 (SC). 5. The issue with regard to the Mahinidra Rakshak vehicles once again came up for consideration before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik who vide order dated 17.06.2004 confirmed the demand of duty by adding the value of bullet proofing which was undertaken on a job work basis as bullet proofing did not amount to manufacture. The said order was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r investigation, a show cause notice dated 29.1.2013 was issued to the appellant alleging that the department came to the knowledge on 01.01.2012 that the appellant carried out the process which amount to manufacture and they have intentionally did not disclose this fact in the ER-1 return and not pay duty as the process of bulleting proofing amounts to manufacture as such process converted the base vehicle into a specialized vehicle having a distinct name, character and use. Therefore, the duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the show cause notice dated 29.1.2013 is barred by limitation as the adjudicating authority ignored the fact that as far back as in 2003, the department after making the requisite inquiries alleged that the appellants predecessor-in-title (MDS) was, by bulleting proofing the M & M vehicles, manufacturing new product. Further, a mere perusal of the Order dated 17.06.2004, it is clear that the very same process of bullet proofing that has been set out by the department in the present show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) (iv) CCE vs. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works-2006 (197) ELT 308 (SC) (v) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE, Raiipur-2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) 7. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner Nashik had held that bullet proofing does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, due to change of opinion, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Madura Power Corp.(P) Limit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sioner, Nashik in his order confirmed that bullet proofing does not amount to manufacture. The said order has been affirmed by this Tribunal. Therefore, the activity of bullet proofing in respect of the said vehicle does not result in into existence a new product, having a new name, character and use. A mere comparison of the pictures of the M & M Scorpio, Bolero Jeep and Bus with the pictures of the BPS, Rakshak and BP Bus would show that there is no change whatsoever to the external or int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vehicle and reinforcing the same with bullet proofing sheets from the inside, strengthening the platform by welding iron studs on the weak joints of the platform and replacement of coils and shock absorbers so as to enable the platform to bear the increased weight of the base vehicle after bullet proofing. The body shell is then reinstalled on the platform and the floor is covered with a ballistic carpet. The glass is also changed to thicker bullet proof glass. These vehicles are sold to defence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(SC) (5) VeeKalyan Industries vs. CCE-1996 (83) ELT 262 (SC) (6) CCE vs. Tarpaulin International -2010 (256) ELT 481 (SC) (7) Metlex (I) Pvt. Limited vs. CCE-2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC) (8) Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited vs. State of Kerala-1989 (3) SCC 127 (9) Sterling Foods vs. State of Karnataka-1986 (26) ELT 3 (SC( (10) CCE vs. Midas Techniquies Pvt. Limited -2015 (329) ELT 926 (Tri.) (11) Fram & Company vs. CCE - 1987 (30) ELT 541 (Tri.) 10. He contended that the bullet proofing/security of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of civilians. The bullet proofing of the body is not essential but adds to the security of the passenger. The bullet proof Scorpio, Rakshak or the Bullet proof Bus cannot be distinguished from the base vehicle, and even they are known as Bullet Proof Scorpio, Rakshak and Bullet Proof Bus it cannot be said that it is a different product. He relied on the decision in the case of CCE vs. Dilip Chhabaria Designs Pvt. Limited -2015 (325) ELT 390 (Tri.). 11. He further submits that the value addition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts that there is no chapter note in chapter 87 which artificially defines fabrication of bodies on the existing motor vehicles as amounting to manufacture. The fabrication of bodies on existing motors vehicles in any event does not amount to manufacture as held in the following judgements: (a) Darshan Singh Pavitar vs. UOI-1988 (34) ELT 631 (P&H) (b) Malwa Motor Body Works vs. CCE-1989 (44) ELT 653 ((T) (c) CCE vs. Roplas (India) Ltd.-1991 (52) ELT 240 (T) (d) CCE vs. Roplas (India) Ltd.-199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ication of the BP Scorpio under sub heading 8703 3392. This sub-heading is not applicable for two reasons: (i) the sub-heading is applicable to vehicles of a cylinder capacity exceeding 2500 cc, whereas the Scorpio has a cylinder capacity of only 2179 cc; and (ii) the said sub-heading covered Specialized transport vehicles like ambulances, prison vans, and the like . The BP Scorpio is not a specialized vehicle where the exterior and the interiors are altered for a specialized use. An ambulance i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice. The Commissioner has therefore clearly travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice which is not permissible in the light of the decision of Tribunal in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited vs. CCE-2008 (10) STR 611 (T). He further submits that this sub-heading is not applicable for the reasons set out hereinabove. 16. He further submits that the Scorpio manufactured by M & M classified under sub heading 8703 3299. There being no difference between the base vehicle and the bullet p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of the bullet proof bus. Despite the same, the adjudicating authority has purported to classify the said vehicle under sub heading 8703 3392 wrongly alleging that there was no dispute with regard to its classification under that sub-heading. 17. He further submits that without prejudice to the aforesaid, the classification under heading 8703 is manifestly incorrect and shows total non-application of mind and heading 8702 covers motor vehicles for transport of 10 or more than persons. Headin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egard. 19. He further submits that the adjudicating has erred in recalculating the demand by working backwards from the cum-duty price. He also submitted that the penalty is not imposable on the appellant in the light of the following decisions: (a) CCE vs. Pioneer Scientific Glass Works-2006 (197) ELT 308 (SC) (b) CCE, Belgaum vs. S.R.V.Automobiles-2014 (299) ELT 301 (Kar.) (c) CCE, Mumbai vs. Danmet Chemicals Pvt. Limited - 2007 (216) ELT 3 (SC) 20. He therefore submits that the impugned order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he ultimate users. As per judicial pronouncements of the Hon ble Apex Court, an activity to be called as manufacture under Central Excise law, a new commercial product should emerge, different from the one with which the process started. After bullet proofing done by the appellant, a new product comes into existence because inserting bullet proof layers by using specific frames, by removing the body of the base vehicle, strengthening the platform by welding iron studs on the weak joints of the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d a commercially separate market. He also relied on the following decisions: (a) UOI vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd.-1977 (1) J199 (SC) (b) UOI vs. Parle Products Pvt.Ltd.-1994 (74) ELT 492 (SC) (c) AP State Electricity Board s. CCE, Hyderabad-1994 (70) ELT 3 (SC) (d) Empire Industries Ltd. UOI-1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC) (e) South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs.UOI-1978 (2) ELT J 336 (SC) (f) Indian Cables Co. Limited vs. CCE-1994 (74) ELT 22 (SC). 23. He further submits that this is incorrect t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng activity done by the job worker amounts to manufacture or not. 24. He further submits that malafide intention of the party is clearly brought out by the adjudicating authority as the appellant never disclosed the fact to the department that the process carried out by them to produce Marksman, RIV and BPS amounts to manufacture. It came to the notice of the department only when the audit of the unit was conducted. This fact was also not disclosed during filing ER-1 returns, therefore the impug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

scope of the show cause notice or not: (d) Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not (e) Whether the penalty on the appellant are imposable or not 27. Whether the activities comes under manufacturing or not, we find that the said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited (supra) wherein the this Tribunal held as under:- 4. The Revenue heavily relied upon the Hon ble Supreme Courts decision in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the base vehicle is supplied to job-worker, the responsibility of supply of Bullet Proof Jeep to the police departments remained with M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra ltd. Hence the demand is rightly made. 5. We find that the Tribunal in the appellantsown case where the Bullet Proof Jeep was supplied to J&K Police and the process of bullet proofing was undertaken by the job-worker, the Tribunal after relying upon the Boards Circular No. 139/08/2000-CX, dated 4-1-2001 whereby the Revenue obtaine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r in the case of the appellant i.e. CC Nasik v. Mahindra & Mahindra (supra) : 4. We have considered the rival submissions and relevant records. The moot point is what is the transaction value in this case. Departments contention is that since MML is a single entity and order is placed on one of their divisions, the value to be adopted is for the vehicle supplied to the customer and not the value of the base vehicle removed from the respondent. It would be appropriate to consider the relevant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ired every manufacturer to be registered and C.B.E. & C. is empowered to specify conditions and limitations. The Board vide Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended has prescribed conditions. According to the notification, if a registered person has more than one premises, he shall obtain separate registration certificate for each premises. The fact that each premises should have a registration emerges from the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act which requires determinat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion have to be resorted. 7. A hypothetical example makes the position clear. Let us take an assessee who has 4 divisions in different parts of the country, each making plastic granules, plastic films, plastic bags and printed bags. For the finished product of one division, the finished product of another division is the raw material. If a purchase order is placed on the division for printed plastic bag, question arises whether the division clearing the granule can be asked to pay duty on the va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioner(Appeals) in her order has considered this aspect in detail before setting aside the order. Her observations relevant are reproduced below for better appreciation :- 15. Now the question as to under these types of transaction and circumstances, whether the value of processing carried out by the independent contractor can be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared, without carrying out such process from the appellantspremises. In this regard the appellants have referred to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g to manufacture and the other unit belongs to same group or is that of the job workers who merely processes the goods without owning them and collects job charges and return or cleared the goods on behalf of the supplier of the goods. The Law Ministry has advised that the judgment of the Siddharth Tubes Ltd. does not enable the department to charge duty on value addition outside the factory of clearance on account of certain processes not amounting to manufacture of manufactured goods in a sepa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the bare vehicles were cleared from their factory on payment of duty and the value addition on account of bullet proofing was carried out by the independent job worker viz. M/s. Metaltech Motor Bodies, in the premises of the job worker. (6). Almost an identical issue relating to the place of removal after the amendment came up before the two member Bench headed by the President of the Tribunal, in Castrol India Ltd. v. C.C.E, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 35 (Tribunal) = 2000 (41) RLT 652 (CEG .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the time at which such goods were cleared from the factory as per definition of time of removalprovided by sub-clause(b)(a) to clause (iv) of Section 4 of the Act. The same view had also been taken by the Western Bench of the Tribunal in Sarita Chemicals Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai IV - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 394 (Tribunal) = 1999 (34) RLT 573 (CEGAT). 18. It is seen from the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal that the goods should be assessed in the condition in which the same are cleared from the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals)order has to be upheld. We find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. 10. The ratio of the above decision is fully applicable to the present case. We find no reason to take a different view. 11. In view of the above decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The said issue also came up before the Tribunal in the case of Nasik unit of the appellant and the Tribunal again held that Bullet Proofing does not amount to manufacture. 28. In view of the above, fol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iron studs on the weak joints of the platform and replacement of coils and shock absorbers so as to enable the platform to bear the increased weight of the base vehicle after bullet proofing. The body shell is then reinstalled on the platform and the floor is covered with a ballistic carpet. The glass is also changed to thicker bullet proof glass. We have seen that Mahindra Scorpio remains as Mahindra Scorpio and Mahindra Bus remains as Mahindra Bus before and after the bullet proofing and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd this Tribunal has held as under:- 6. In all the appeals the issues to be decided by us are as under : (a) Whether customisation of the motor vehicles as per requirements of customers amounts to manufacture as per Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and/or Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff. (b) Whether dropping of demand by the Commissioner on alleged removal of add on kits and parts from Powai and Silvassa units are correct. (c) Whether the Respondents are entitled fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hanges as per the requirement of the customer inside and outside of the vehicle. In our considered view these activity do not amount to manufacture for the reason that the original duty paid motor vehicles remained as motor vehicles only, except some changes and due to these changes original identity of the product in terms of Central Excise provisions does not change. We find that revenue in their appeal mainly emphasized on chapter Note 3 of Chapter 87 which is reproduced below : - for the pur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uring process attracting central excise levy on the resultant motor vehicles in terms of said Chapter Note. As per the fact of the present case it is undisputed that in the activity of customization of the car, the respondent has only made partial changes in the completely built up vehicle therefore they have neither fabricated any body/equipment nor mounted the same on chassis. Therefore the activity of customization carried out by the respondent does not fall under the four corners of Chapter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and CCE v. Satguru Auto Builders (supra) are not applicable in the present case. In view of this, we upheld the setting aside the demand in respect of customization of the motor vehicle. As regard the dropping of the demand on account of alleged removal of add on kits and parts and shortage found in the physical stock verification in Powai and Silvassa unit, we find that there are serious conflicts between the allegation made in the show cause notices and Commissioners findings in the impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, issue of time bar etc. As regard the duty demand related to clearances claimed to be covered under SSI Notification No. 8/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 during the year 2001-02 it is observed that Ld. Commissioner while computing the aggregate value of ₹ 3 Crores during the year 2000-01 made an error that value of ₹ 1,03,04,873/- towards clearances of bus/tempo traveler was not taken into account therefore aggregate value remained below ₹ 3 crores, accordingly extended the benefit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ar 2001-02. However, the issue of time bar is yet to be considered by the adjudicating authority in respect of duty demand proposed by denying the SSI exemption, we therefore direct the adjudicating authority to reconsider the demand related to SSI exemption from limitation aspect. The ld. Counsel made submission that whatsoever demand is confirmed the abatement of excise duty be given considering the value as cum duty. We agree with this and direct the Adjudicating authority to compute the duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00/- in each order. We therefore hold that the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- in each order on Shri B.D. Bajaj should be imposed. In view of our above discussion, we upheld the setting aside the demand in respect of customization of motor vehicle as held by the Ld. Commissioner in order in OIO No. 25/2003, dated 10-12-2003. However the matter relates to OIO No. 26/2003 and 27/2003 both dated 10-12-2003 (Except the demand of ₹ 16,48,780/- which has been finally decided by Hon ble Bombay High C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a test to determine whether the activity amounts to manufacture or not, as under:- 27. The case law discussed above falls into four neat categories. (1) Where the goods remain exactly the same even after a particular process, there is obviously no manufacture involved. Processes which remove foreign matter from goods complete in themselves and/or processes which clean goods that are complete in themselves fall within this category. (2) Where the goods remain essentially the same after the partic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also no manufacture of goods takes place. (4) Where the goods are transformed into goods which are different and/or new after a particular process, such goods being marketable as such. It is in this category that manufacture of goods can be said to take place. We find that the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, whether the goods remain essentially the same after the particular process, again there can be no manufacture. 30. Admittedly, in this case the Scorpio remain Scorpio and the Bus remains t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, dated 1-7-1986, according to which building of body chassis by independent body building units would amount to manufacture of goods under heading Nos. 87.02 to 87.04 as the case may be. However, in this cases, only certain modifications on the body already built are carried out, hence this process cannot be considered as manufacture. Accordingly, it was decided that conversion of old buses into lorries by certain modification will not amount to manufacture and the resultant goods are not liabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tter appreciation, we reproduce the Chapter tariff heading as under:- Tariff Item Description of goods 8702 MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE TRANSPORT OF TEN OR MORE PERSONS, INCLUDING THE DRIVER 8703 MOTOR CARS AND OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES PRINCIPALLY DESIGNED FOR THE TRANSPORT OF PERSONS (OTHER THAN THOSE OF HEADING 8702), INCLUDING STATION WAGONS AND RACING CARS 8703 32 - Of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 2,500 cc 8703 32 92 -Specialized transport vehicles such ambulances, prison .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that in the case of Bus, the correct classification would be under Chapter 8702, as applicable to the motor vehicles having capacity of 10 or more persons including driver. Admittedly, the Bus carries more than 10 persons and the classification proposed in the show cause notice under Chapter 8703 is not applicable to the Bus. In that circumstances, we hold that the classification proposed in the show cause notice is contrary to the facts of the case in hand. Accordingly, we hold that the classi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y to Service Tax payable on the service provided by Consulting Engineer service which is very clear from the show cause notice. The show cause notice has given the scope of the services of Consulting Engineer and it does not refer to any other service such as Chartered Accountant Service, Commercial Training or Coaching Service, etc. Therefore, it is very clear that the demand is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further, the appellant has relied on the following case laws : (i) Siemens .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version