Issues: Whether CENVAT credit on service tax paid for handling, transporting and crushing ore in captive mines is admissible as input service where a part of the ore is discarded at the mine and only the remaining ore reaches the factory; and whether the demand of interest and penalty can survive if the credit is admissible.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 uses an expansive definition of input service for a manufacturer, covering services used directly or indirectly, and in or in relation to, the manufacture of final products. Read with the definition of manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the cross-reference in Rule 2(t) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the expression is not confined to services applied only to the portion of ore that ultimately reaches the factory. Crushing and handling of mined ore are part of the integrated process by which the usable ore is obtained for manufacture, and the removal of waste material does not sever the nexus with manufacture. The departmental view that credit is allowable only on the quantity physically received in the factory was held to be too narrow and inconsistent with the statutory language.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible in full and the demand was unsustainable. The related interest and penalty also failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service is integrally connected with the process of obtaining and preparing the usable input for manufacture, it qualifies as input service if it is used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture, even though some material is discarded in the process.

Issues: Whether credit taken on goods returned to the factory under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was inadmissible merely because the reprocessed goods were not returned to the same buyer, and whether the demand, interest and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: Rule 16 permits credit when duty-paid goods are returned for being remade, refined, reconditioned or for any other reason, and Rule 16(2) requires payment of duty or reversal depending on whether the process amounts to manufacture. The governing provision does not impose a requirement that the reworked goods must be returned to the same customer from whom they were received. The departmental circular relied upon by the revenue was held to govern the situation contemplated by Rule 16(1) and not to add a further condition to Rule 16(2). The finding that the appellant had not manufactured the same machine and had used only some components also travelled beyond the show cause notice, which had proceeded only on the basis that the goods were not returned to the same buyer. The record further showed that the returned machine had come back under original invoices and that the unused parts were cleared as scrap on duty payment.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible, and the demand, interest and equal penalty were not sustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order confirming recovery was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not require returned duty-paid goods, once received for remaking or reconditioning, to be returned to the same buyer, and credit taken on such returned goods cannot be denied on that ground alone.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) passed a sustainable appellate order while dealing with the disallowance of quantity discount and price support or price difference discount in finalization of provisional assessments, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had not independently examined the grounds of appeal, the evidence, or the relevant statutory provisions, but had merely reproduced the adjudication findings and recorded a blanket statement that no reason existed to interfere. Such an approach was held to be a non-speaking order and contrary to the obligation of a quasi-judicial appellate authority to pass a reasoned decision. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had travelled beyond the scope of the appeal by making observations on freight and insurance deductions which were not under challenge, and that the merits of the deductions could not be finally adjudicated without proper factual findings by the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was unsustainable and the appeals were remanded for fresh decision on merits after independent consideration of all grounds, evidence and submissions. The deductions already allowed in the orders-in-original were left undisturbed.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the subsequent order in original, and no interference was made with the impugned High Court order.

Issues: Whether the Revenue was justified in re-deducting and re-quantifying Cenvat credit while implementing the earlier Tribunal order directing refund of amounts deposited during litigation.

Analysis: The amounts deposited by the appellants during the pendency of proceedings were treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the earlier order had already accepted that the refund would be granted after deducting the Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of captively consumed clinker. The original orders passed in 2016 had already quantified the refundable amounts after verification and deduction of the relevant Cenvat credit, and no appeal was filed by the Revenue against that quantification. The Tribunal held that the earlier direction could not be read as authorising a second deduction or fresh re-quantification of the same credit, and that any dispute regarding admissibility of credit had to be pursued separately in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not entitled to reopen the concluded quantification or deduct the Cenvat credit again, and the refund, as earlier quantified, was payable to the assessees.

Issues: (i) Whether the product manufactured and cleared by the appellant was classifiable as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 or as zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30, and whether the duty demand and penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could survive; (ii) Whether penalties imposed on M/s. R.R. Jhiriwal, Robin Jhiriwal and Rajan Jhiriwal under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the product manufactured and cleared by the appellant was classifiable as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10 or as zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30, and whether the duty demand and penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could survive.

Analysis: The product had consistently been declared in ER-1 returns as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10, and the department had itself repeatedly passed orders classifying the same product under that tariff entry from 2012 onwards. In these circumstances, the department could not successfully contend, on the basis of the later proceedings, that the same product was zarda scented tobacco under CETI 2403 99 30. Once the classification in favour of chewing tobacco was accepted on the facts, the differential duty demand founded on the contrary classification could not stand, and the consequential penalty under section 11AC also failed.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable as chewing tobacco under CETI 2403 99 10, and the demand of duty, interest and the section 11AC penalty were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed on M/s. R.R. Jhiriwal, Robin Jhiriwal and Rajan Jhiriwal under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 26 required a finding that the goods were liable to confiscation. The impugned order did not contain a proper discussion or finding on confiscability, and the mere imposition of rule 26 penalty could not cure that defect. In the absence of the essential statutory ingredient, the penalties could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was held unsustainable in law, and all connected appeals were allowed with the entire adverse duty and penalty burden removed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department has consistently treated the goods under one tariff entry and the adjudication order does not record the essential finding that the goods are liable to confiscation, the contrary duty demand and rule 26 penalty cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit on invoices issued by bogus or non-existent suppliers and whether the extended period of limitation and equal penalty were rightly invoked.

Analysis: The credit was taken on grey fabric invoices issued by suppliers later found to be fake or non-existent, and the Tribunal noted multiple irregularities in the invoices and delivery documents, including abnormal values, vague descriptions, common addresses, and absent transport details. Relying on the settled interpretation of Rule 7(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the Tribunal held that the credit taker must take all reasonable steps to verify the identity and address of the supplier and the duty-paid nature of the goods. The evidence showed that such precautions were not taken and that the appellant had taken credit knowing the documents were not genuine. The Tribunal also held that the facts disclosed positive action sufficient to justify invocation of the extended period and consequential penalty under the Central Excise Act and the Cenvat Credit Rules. The objection based on non-supply of relied-upon documents was rejected.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the Cenvat credit, the extended period of limitation was validly invoked, and the equal penalty was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be sustained on invoices issued by bogus or non-existent suppliers unless the assessee has taken all reasonable steps to verify the supplier's identity and the genuineness of the duty-paid documents, and deliberate use of such documents supports invocation of the extended period and penalty.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,49,675 disallowed on insurance services, works contract services and manpower supply services was inadmissible under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (ii) Whether the CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,50,989 allowed on manpower supply services could be denied on the ground of procedural defects in the invoices under rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,49,675 disallowed on insurance services, works contract services and manpower supply services was inadmissible under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The disputed insurance credit related to survey services and the appellant had furnished the relevant breakup and supporting material, so the finding that no explanation or documents were produced was incorrect. The works contract credit was for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, not for construction of a building or civil structure, and therefore did not fall within the exclusion in rule 2(l). The manpower supply credit was used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery during shutdown and was integral to manufacture, making it an input service.

Conclusion: The disallowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,49,675 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,50,989 allowed on manpower supply services could be denied on the ground of procedural defects in the invoices under rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The services were actually received and used in the manufacturing operations, and the substantive requirements for availing credit were satisfied. A mere procedural deficiency in the invoices did not justify denial of credit where eligibility of the input service was not in dispute.

Conclusion: The allowance of CENVAT credit of Rs. 67,50,989 was upheld and the department's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in setting aside the disallowance of credit, while the department's appeal against the allowance of credit was rejected, leaving the assessee with full relief on the disputed credit demands.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied where the service is substantively an input service used in manufacture, and procedural defects in documentation do not defeat entitlement when receipt and use of the service are established.

Issues: Whether penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be sustained against co-noticees where the principal noticee has settled the underlying duty dispute under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The principal noticee had settled the dispute concerning allegedly irregular CENVAT credit under the Scheme. Applying binding coordinate-Bench decisions on materially identical facts, the settlement of the demand under the Scheme entailed waiver of penalties not only for the principal noticee but also for co-noticees, notwithstanding that the co-noticees had not independently filed declarations under the Scheme. The contrary view of a Single Member Bench could not prevail over the coordinate Division Bench decisions.

Conclusion: Penalties imposed on the co-noticees under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are unsustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal were maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The objection to maintainability was accepted after considering Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the respondents' preliminary objection that the proper course was a statutory appeal rather than writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was permitted to take back the papers and present the matters as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be not maintainable and the objection was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's orders did not proceed in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific statutory appeal lies under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass that remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether credit attributable to common input services used in exempted clearances was required to be reversed without excluding cotton yarn cleared for export without payment of duty under the DEPB/export exemption regime. (ii) Whether the value of cotton yarn cleared for job work for manufacture of grey fabric or doubling of yarn was to be included while computing exempted goods for reversal of credit.

Issue (i): Whether credit attributable to common input services used in exempted clearances was required to be reversed without excluding cotton yarn cleared for export without payment of duty under the DEPB/export exemption regime.

Analysis: The dispute was held to be covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the ruling of the High Court that CENVAT credit remains available where exempted goods are exported, and that export clearances are not to be brought into the reversal computation in the manner adopted in the impugned order. Judicial discipline was applied to follow the earlier binding and persuasive precedents on the same issue.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of cotton yarn cleared for job work for manufacture of grey fabric or doubling of yarn was to be included while computing exempted goods for reversal of credit.

Analysis: The returns and records showed that the job work turnover had already been accounted for in the exempted-goods computation, and inclusion of the same value again would amount to double counting. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the job work turnover could not be added to the value of exempted goods for reversal purposes.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, leaving no surviving demand on the disputed computation of reversal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exported clearances are treated as exempted for CENVAT purposes, they cannot be included to enlarge the reversal base, and turnover already accounted for in the exempted-goods computation cannot be added again for reversal of common input service credit.

Issues: (i) whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified, and (ii) whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be sustained when the show cause notice did not propose such penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation was justified.

Analysis: The notice was issued more than three years after the departmental visit and after the assessee had already registered and made deposits towards the differential duty. The record showed that the department was aware of the relevant facts well before the notice. In that background, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty was not substantiated, and the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be sustained when the show cause notice did not propose such penalty.

Analysis: The show cause notice contained no proposal for penalty under Rule 26, yet the penalty was confirmed mechanically in the impugned order. Such a penalty could not be sustained in the absence of a corresponding proposal in the notice and without recorded reasons supporting it.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unsustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked without substantiated suppression or intent to evade duty, and a penalty not proposed in the show cause notice cannot be confirmed.

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to decide the excisability of the aluminium composite panels; and (ii) whether cutting, grooving and routing of the aluminium composite panels amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to decide the excisability of the aluminium composite panels.

Analysis: An appeal under Section 35G is excluded where the order of the Tribunal concerns a question having a relation to the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment. The determination whether goods are excisable is a necessary precursor to assessment and is directly and proximately connected with the rate of duty. Section 35L, read with its clarificatory sub-section (2), channels such disputes to the Supreme Court and confirms that excisability falls within the excluded class of questions.

Conclusion: The High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the question of excisability; the proper forum was the Supreme Court.

Issue (ii): whether cutting, grooving and routing of the aluminium composite panels amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Manufacture requires emergence of a new and distinct commercial product with a different name, character or use, and marketability of the resultant goods must also be shown. The process undertaken only cut the panels to size, grooved them and adapted them for installation. It did not alter the essential identity or commercial character of the goods, and the Revenue did not establish that the processed panels emerged as distinct marketable goods.

Conclusion: The process did not amount to manufacture and the resultant goods were not shown to be dutiable excisable goods.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the assessee succeeded on both jurisdiction and merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute on excisability is a question having a direct and proximate relation to assessment and therefore lies within the Supreme Court's exclusive appellate domain under Section 35L, and superficial processing that does not create a distinct marketable commercial product is not manufacture.

Issues: (i) whether the clearances of the alleged sister concerns could be clubbed with the assessee's clearances for denial of SSI exemption and duty demand; (ii) whether the findings of clandestine manufacture and removal were supported by admissible evidence; (iii) whether confiscation of the seized goods and the personal penalties imposed under the Central Excise Rules were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the clearances of the alleged sister concerns could be clubbed with the assessee's clearances for denial of SSI exemption and duty demand?

Analysis: The alleged units were shown to have operated from different premises with separate registrations, bank accounts, electricity connections and tax returns. Before their clearances could be treated as those of dummy units and clubbed with the assessee's turnover, they were required to be put on notice and given an opportunity to establish their independent character. No such notice was issued to the other units whose clearances were aggregated. Clubbing of clearances without hearing the concerned units offended natural justice and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The clubbing of clearances and the consequential duty demand based on such clubbing were unsustainable and failed.

Issue (ii): whether the findings of clandestine manufacture and removal were supported by admissible evidence?

Analysis: The case of clandestine removal rested mainly on statements recorded during investigation, some of which were later retracted, and on seized notebooks. The adjudication did not rest on corroborative documentary evidence showing unaccounted raw materials, excess consumption of electricity, transport, delivery, receipt of sale proceeds or other material indicia of clandestine manufacture. The notebooks were not shown to establish production beyond the statutory records, and the buyers' statements did not prove suppression of manufacture or removal. In the absence of cogent independent evidence, the charge of clandestine removal could not stand.

Conclusion: The allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal were not proved and were rejected.

Issue (iii): whether confiscation of the seized goods and the personal penalties imposed under the Central Excise Rules were sustainable?

Analysis: The confiscation was founded on the same infirm material and on retracted statements, without reliable proof that the goods were non-duty-paid. Once the demand and the clandestine-removal allegations failed, the foundation for confiscation disappeared. Personal penalty under Rule 26 requires personal dealing with excisable goods coupled with knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. Since confiscation itself could not survive and the evidence of culpable conduct was lacking, the penalties also could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the personal penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order did not survive judicial scrutiny and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Clearances of alleged dummy units cannot be clubbed and duty demanded without putting those units to notice and proving the case by independent corroborative evidence; retracted statements and uncorroborated materials are insufficient to sustain clandestine removal, confiscation, or penalties.

Issues: (i) Whether the cost of production under CAS-4 for valuation under Rule 8 is to be computed on actual costs of inputs and manufacture or on the basis of the assessee's internal notional transfer price; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in respect of a periodical show cause notice; (iii) whether the demand can be sustained where the entire demand is revenue neutral.

Issue (i): Whether the cost of production under CAS-4 for valuation under Rule 8 is to be computed on actual costs of inputs and manufacture or on the basis of the assessee's internal notional transfer price.

Analysis: The valuation for captively consumed goods must follow CAS-4, which is based on actual landed cost of inputs, fabrication cost, and other actual manufacturing costs. The internal transfer price used only for management information and accounting purposes is a notional figure linked to market prices and does not reflect actual cost of production. The binding departmental circular also requires CAS-4 based valuation, and the notional transfer price cannot replace actual cost for excise valuation.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked in respect of a periodical show cause notice.

Analysis: For a recurring or periodical dispute, the extended period is not available where the facts were disclosed in regular returns and the dispute does not disclose suppression with intent to evade duty. The Court treated the notice as periodical in nature and held that the longer limitation could not be invoked on that basis.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand can be sustained where the entire demand is revenue neutral.

Analysis: Where the duty allegedly short-paid would be available as credit to the assessee's other units and the overall duty incidence remains neutral, there is no sustainable basis for confirming the demand on the footing of evasion. Revenue neutrality also negates the invocation of extended limitation on the facts found.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the assessee was upheld, and the objections on limitation and revenue neutrality were rejected, leaving no basis to interfere with the appellate relief granted below.

Ratio Decidendi: For captively consumed goods, excise valuation under Rule 8 must be based on actual cost reflected in CAS-4 and cannot be altered by substituting a notional internal transfer price used only for accounting purposes; a periodical, revenue-neutral demand does not justify invocation of the extended period.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The special leave petitions were dismissed and the pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the impugned input services used in the manufacture and clearance of final products under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on manpower supply for canteen service as an input service.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the impugned input services used in the manufacture and clearance of final products under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The definition of input service was read as having wide amplitude, covering services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and on the settled position that services having nexus with manufacture or business activity fall within the inclusive scope of the definition.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the impugned input services was held admissible and the denial of credit was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on manpower supply for canteen service as an input service.

Analysis: The canteen facility was treated as a statutory and cost-linked requirement in a factory having the requisite number of workers, and the manpower supplied for operating the canteen was held to be a service in relation to manufacture. The Tribunal followed the larger bench view that canteen-related expenditure forms part of the cost of production and is covered by the broad meaning of input service.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on manpower supply for canteen service was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the disputed input service credit claims, while the Revenue's challenge to the credit allowed on canteen manpower service failed, resulting in a partial allowance of the composite set of appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Services that have a direct or indirect nexus with manufacture, clearance, or the business of production are covered by the wide inclusive scope of input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and canteen-related services mandated for factory operations may also qualify when they form part of the cost of production.

Issues: (i) Whether the petition to quash the criminal complaint and summoning order was maintainable despite earlier petitions having been withdrawn, and (ii) whether the criminal complaint under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could survive after the appellate tribunal set aside the duty demand on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the petition to quash the criminal complaint and summoning order was maintainable despite earlier petitions having been withdrawn.

Analysis: The earlier petitions were dismissed as withdrawn and not on merits. No adjudication was rendered on the controversy at that stage. The appellate tribunal's later decision on merits materially changed the factual and legal position and gave rise to a fresh cause of action.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and was not barred by the earlier withdrawals.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal complaint under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could survive after the appellate tribunal set aside the duty demand on merits.

Analysis: The tribunal held that there was no contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and set aside the demand, noting that the disputed amount with interest had already been deposited before the show cause notice. Once the foundational demand was annulled on merits, the basis of the prosecution ceased to exist and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Conclusion: The criminal complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution could not be sustained after the competent appellate forum negatived the very basis of the demand on merits, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: When the competent adjudicatory authority sets aside the underlying demand on merits and finds no statutory contravention, the very substratum of a related criminal prosecution disappears, justifying quashing of the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.