Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48085 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
14 year(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-05-2011
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
Not Allotted
Assessment Year
1993-1994
Appeal Filed On
17-04-1997
Judgement Text
, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () , , , !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SHR I AKBER BASHA, AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 1103/CAL/1997 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94 PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD. -VS- DEPUTY COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (PAN-AABCP 5721 B) CENTRAL CIRCLE-VI, KOLKATA. ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. BHOWMICK FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI B. R. PUROKAYASTHA ! / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH/ : THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-C-1, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 8/CC-VI/CIT(A)-C-1/96-97 DATED 16.12.1996. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CC- VI, KOLKATA, U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.02. 1996. 2. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, IN THE PRESENT CASE , IN ITA NO.189 OF 2002 HAS ADMITTED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDI NG THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SE CTION 32(1)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF CASTINGS AND PATTERNS, THE COST OF EACH OF WHICH WAS LESS THAN RS.5000/- AND ITS PURPORTED FINDINGS IN THIS BEHALF HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY IGNORING THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AND/OR BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IRREL EVANT AND/OR EXTRANEOUS MATERIALS AND/OR ARE OTHERWISE ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND PE RVERSE? AND HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14 TH DECEMBER, 2010 DIRECTED TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: ON READING THE JUDGMENTS OF ALL THE AUTHORITIES AN D UPON HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FEEL THAT ALL THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENT OF THE INVOICES UNDER WHICH THE SAID PATTERN WAS PURCHASED AND ALSO DID N OT CONSIDER THE SUBSEQUENT LEASE DOCUMENT NOR SCRUTINIZED THE SAME. MOREOVER, SUBSE QUENTLY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALREADY IN ANOTHER MATTER, HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE PATTERN CAN BE USED INDEPENDENTLY. THAT BEING THE POSITION, WE THINK T HAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL SHOULD RECONSIDER THE MATTER, CAREFULLY EXAMINING AND SCRU TINIZING THE INVOICES AND ALSO THE OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SHALL TAKE NOT OF THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF 2 ITA 1103/K/1997 PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD.. A.Y.93 -94 INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE CASE OF J. K. CREDIT & FINANCE LTD. IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. IF IT IS REQUIRED, THE TRIBUNAL MAY TAKE THE OPINI ON OF AN EXPERT ON THE PRODUCT AND COME TO A FRESH FACT FINDING AS TO WHETHER EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL PATTERN CAN HAVE INDEPENDENT UTILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY AND IF I T IS FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF EACH PATTERN DOES NOT EXCEED RS.5000/-, THEN APPROPRIATE ORDER MAY BE PASSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH HEARING WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS ABO VE. THIS EXERCISE SHALL BE DONE WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THIS ORDER. THIS ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 26 TH MARCH, 2011. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. AS POINTED OUT BY LD. SR. COUNSEL SHRI J. P. KHAITA N THAT IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK INVOICES OF PATTERNS ARE FILED, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT EAC H OF THE ITEM IS BELOW RS.5,000/-. WE EXAMINED THE INVOICES AND PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO P AGE 24 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN PATTERNS ARE VALUED MINIMUM AT RS.2,950/- AND MAXIM UM AT RS.4,450/-, EVIDENTLY IT IS CLEAR THAT EACH OF THE PATTERN IS COSTING LESS THAN RS.5, 000/-. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF J. K. CREDIT & F INANCE LTD APPEAL NO.10/CIT(A)-I/CC-1(3) / 96-97 DATED 31.01.1997, WHEREIN ON SIMILAR ISSUE, H E ALLOWED 100% DEPRECIATION ON PATTERNS INVOLVING EACH LESS THAN RS.5,000/- AND FINALLY TRI BUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) VIDE PARA 4.6 AS UNDER: 4.6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASES RAISED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE COST OF EACH PATTERN WAS LESS THAN RS.5000/-. THE DEPAR TMENT HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT IN A UNIT WORKING AT A SMALL SCALE, ONE PATTER N COULD BE USED AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF A UNIT LIKE THE LESSOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT COULD BE USED IN BULK. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN A SINGLE PATTERN COULD BE USED BY A PERSON, EACH PATTERN CONSTITUTE A UNIT IN ITSELF AND AS SUCH IS A PLANT. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOURASHTRA BOTTLING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DISCU SSED THE MEANING OF THE PLANT AND HELD THAT A BOTTLE AND A CRATE WAS A PLANT. ONE SOFT DR INKS COULD NOT BE SOLD BY THE MANUFACTURER. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOLD AT LEAST IN A CRATE/BOS AND SO THE BOTTLES WOULD HAVE TO BE USED IN A BULK. HOWEVER, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO 100% DEPRECIATION. FOL LOWING THE AFORESAID ANALOGY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EACH PATTERN WOULD BE T REATED AS A PLANT. THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN TH E CASE OF FALGUN EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ITS ORDER D ATED 15 TH JANUARY, 2002 (SUPRA) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR 1005 DEPRECIATION IRRESPEC TIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE STEEL MOULDS WERE TO BE USED IN BULK BUT THE COST OF EACH STEEL MOULDS WAS LESS THAN RS.5000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) IN REGARD TO ALLOWING 100% DEPRECIATION ON THE PATTERNS. 3 ITA 1103/K/1997 PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD.. A.Y.93 -94 4. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE MATERIAL THAT THE PATTE RN WAS MEANT FOR INDIVIDUAL UTILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY AND IT IS NOT ITSELF A COMPONENT OR A NY MATERIAL. THE PATTERS WERE OF DIFFERENT TYPE VIZ., PATTERN FOR 2 D CASTING COVER; PATTERN FOR 1 D4 CASTING; PATTERN FOR D4 SUCTION COVER; PATTERN FOR 1 D8 SUCTION COVER; PATTER FOR 2 D4 I MPELLER; PATTERN FOR 2 D8 IMPELLER AND THE NUMBERS OF THE SAID PATTERNS WERE 50, 50, 100, 75, 100 AND 90 RESPECTIVELY. IF THE PRICES OF ALL THOSE PATTERNS ARE DIVIDED BY THE NUMBERS, IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT COST OF EACH PATTERN IS LESS THAN RS.5000/-. WE FIND FROM COPY OF REPORT FROM AN EXPE RT SHRI SITAL K. BANERJEE, WHO IS A CHARTERED ENGINEER, BCHE, MBA, FIE, CHARTERED ENGIN EER, FIV SR. MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS, LIFE MEMBER OF IND IA INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERS, WHICH IS DATED 28.4.2011 AND THE RELEVANT REPORT READS AS UNDER: M/S. PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT 7 , COUNCIL HOUSE STREET KOLKATA - 700 001 HAD PURCHASED PATTERNS OF DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES FROM M/S. R.B. ASSOCIATES NO.80 PILLAYER KOIL STREET MADHUVINKARAI GUINDY MAD RAS VIDE INVOICE 005/92-93 DT. 22.05.1992. THEREAFTER, M/S. PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD. LEASED OUT THESE PATTERNS TO M/S. BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. OF 312 ANNA SALAI MAD RAS - 600018 FOR THE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS VIDE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 14TH MAY, 1992. THE DETAILS OF THE PATTERNS PURCHASED ARE MENTIONED BELOW:- SL. NO. PARTICULARS NO. OF PATTERN EACH PATTERN COST RS. TOTAL RS. 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ALUMINIUM CASTING FOR 2 D CASING CI PATTERNS FOR 1 D8 CASING CI PATTERNS FOR 2 D4 SUCTION COVER CI PATTERNS FOR 1 D8 SUCTION COVER CI PATTERNS FOR 2 D4 IMPELLER CI PATTERNS FOR 1 D8 IMPELLER ALUMINIUM PATTERNS FOR 2 D6 CASING ALUMINIUM PATTERNS FOR 2 D6 SUCTION COVER 50 NO. 50 NO. 100 NO. 75 NO. 100 NO. 90 NO. 50 NO. 50 NO. 4,450/- 3,860/- 3,850/- 2,950/- 4,410/- 4,390/- 4,405/- 4,032/- TOTAL S.T. @ 8% S.C. @ 15% ASC @ 5% TOTAL 2,22,500.00 1,93,000.00 3,85,000.00 2,21,500.00 4,41,000.00 3,95,100.00 2,20,250.00 2,01,600.00 22,79,950.00 1,82,396.00 27,359.40 9,119.80 24,98,825.20 USE OF PATTERN 1. TO MANUFACTURE A METAL MACHINE PART, MOLTEN METAL I S POURED INTO A MOULD HAVING THE REQUISITE SHAPE AND SIZE SO THAT THE METAL CASTING AFTER COOLING AND REMOVAL OF THE MOULD HAS THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE MACHINE PART. T HE CASTING IS FURTHER WORKED UPON TO COMPLETE THE MACHINE PART. 2. TO MAKE THE MOULD IN WHICH THE MOLTEN METAL IS P OURED A PATTERN IS REQUIRED. THE PATTERN IS OF THE REQUISITE SHAPE AND SIZE WHICH IT IMPARTS TO THE MOULD. THE MOULD IS MADE 4 ITA 1103/K/1997 PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD.. A.Y.93 -94 WITH THE PATTERN BY USING RIVER-SAND, WATER AND CON SUMABLE CHEMICALS. AFTER THE MOLTEN METAL SOLIDFIES, THE SAND MOULD IS BROKEN AND THE M OULDING SAND IS RECYCLED TO PREPARE FRESH MOULD AGAIN BY USING THE PATTERN. 3. M/S. PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LIMITED PURCHASED DIF FERENT TYPES OF PATTERNS AS DETAILED IN THE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR MAKING SAND MOULDS SUITABL E FOR MAKING DIFFERENT TYPES OF METAL MACHINE PARTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DESCRIPTION IN THE INVOICE AT SERIAL NO. 6 READS C. I. PATTERNS 1 D8 IMPELLER 90 NOS. THE WORDS 1 D8 IMPELLER ARE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MACHINE PART. THE CAST IRON PATTERN IS FOR THIS MACHINE PART. WITH THIS PATTERN, THE MOULD FOR THIS MACHINE PART IS MADE. THE MOULD IS T HEN USED TO MAKE THE MACHINE PART. M/S. PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LIMITED PURCHASED 90 NO SUCH PATTERNS, IF ALL 90 PATTERNS ARE USED AT A TIME, 90 MOULDS CAN BE MADE. IF ONE P ATTERN IS USED, ONE MOULD CAN BE MADE. 4. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE PATTERN AT SERIAL NO. 6 OF THE PREVIOUS PAGE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE FOR THE OTHER PATTERNS. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION, IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT EACH PATTERN PURCHASED BY M/S. PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LIMITED IS BY ITSELF AN INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL UNIT FOR MAKING THE MOULD. THE SAME PATTERN CAN BE USED REPEATEDLY TO MAKE A MOULD EVERY TIME. IF MORE THAN ONE PATTERN IS USED AT A T IME, AS MANY MOULDS CAN BE OBTAINED AS THE NUMBER OF PATTERNS. HOWEVER, THE PATTERN TENDS TO GET DAMAGED AND WORN OUT UPON REPEATED USE WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF TIMES IT CA N BE USED. BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE A. PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF SAMPLE B. INVOICE FROM M/ S R. B. ASSOCIATES C. LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S PARAM VARIIJYA LTD. AND M/S BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD. 6. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE REPORT AND INDEPENDENT USAGES OF PATTERNS AND ITS INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONALITY. HOWEVER, LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY CIT(A) IN R EGARD TO FUNCTIONALITY WITH REFERENCE TO ACTUAL USE OF THE PATTERNS BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REF ERRED TO PARA 2.9, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2.9. FROM THE DECISIONS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED IN THE P RECEDING SUB-PARAS IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NONE INVOLVING PATTERNS WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERN ED WITH IN THE INSTANT CASE. YET IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS THE FUNCTIONAL USED OF THE DEPRECIABLE A SSETS WHICH PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED. THIS IS STATED IN THE CASE OF PATH ANGLE POULTRY FIRM VS. CIT REPORTED IN (1994) 210 ITR 668 (KARNATAKA) WHEREIN IT WAS OPINE D THAT TEST OF FUNCTIONAL INTEGRALITY WOULD ULTIMATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMPONENT WOULD BE TREATED AS PLANTS IN THEMSELVES TO QUALIFY FOR 100% DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF THE FIRST PROVIS O TO SECTION 32 (1)(II). IT WAS IN THIS CONTEXT TH AT COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO ENLIGHTEN ME IN REGARD TO THE FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL USE OF THE PATTERNS BY THE LESSEE. ALL THAT THE REPRESENTATI VE HAVE TO OFFER IN RESPONSE IS A LETTER DATED 29.2.96 FROM THE LESSEE ADDRESSED TO LESSOR WHICH READ AS UNDER: SUBJECT: CONFIRMING THE RECEIPT OF MATERIALS. 5 ITA 1103/K/1997 PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD.. A.Y.93 -94 WE CONFIRM HAVING RECEIVED THE MATERIAL PURCHASED UNDER INVOICE NO. 5/92-93 DATED 22.5.92 OF M/S. R. D. ASSOCIATES, GUNDY, MADRAS COV ERED UNDER LEASE AGREEMENT WITH YOURSELF IN GOOD CONDITION. THE SAID MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PUT T O USE BY US. I DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY EXTENSIVE REASONING TO APP RECIATE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION AS TO THE MODE AND MANNER OF USE OF THE LEA SED ASSETS THE CLAIM THAT THE PATTERNS CONSTITUTED MULTIPLE UNITS OF DIFFERENT PLANT OF VA RYING SIZES AND SHAPE CANNOT BUT BE TREATED AS ANYTHING BUT A VERBAL ASSERTION. IT IS TRITE LAW AND OTHERWISE PROVIDED AS EXPRESS STIPULATION IN THE EVIDENCE ACT THAT THE STATUTORY ONUS LIES ON TH E PERSON TO ADDUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WHO STANDS TO LOOSE IN CASE NO EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON R ECORD. IT WAS THEREFORE IMPERATIVE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH ON RECORD THAT THE CO MPONENTS WERE TO BE TREATED AS INDEPENDENT PLANT AND MACHINERY WITH REFERENCE TO THEIR FUNCTIO NAL USE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION REGARDING THE ACTUAL USE TO WHICH THESE LEASED ASSE TS HAD BEEN PUT TO. IT IS TO BE CAREFULLY NOTED THAT IN ANALYZING THE FUNCTIONAL USE WHAT IS RELEV ANT IS NOT WHAT ALL THE ASSET IS CAPABLE OF BUT THE USE TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PUT TO IN THE PAR TICULAR CASE. I SHOULD NOT BE FOUND TO BE ENCOURAGING A NOTION THAT THE DISPUTE CAN BE RESOLV ED SATISFACTORILY IN THE STRENGTH OF THE DECISIONS CITED ON EITHER SIDE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE M ODE AND MANNER OF ACTUAL USE OF THE ASSETS LEASED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, I AM INC LINED TO THE VIEW THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1)(II) CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE APPEL LANT. GROUND NO.2 THEREFORE IS DESTINED TO FAIL. 7. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING TH ROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NARRATED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEES SR. COUNSEL SHRI J. P. KHAITAN IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US THAT THE PATTERN WAS MEANT FO R INDIVIDUAL UTILITY AND FUNCTIONALITY AND IT IS NOT ITSELF A COMPONENT OR ANY MATERIAL AN D INDEPENDENT USAGES. WE FIND, IN VIEW OF THE REPORT OF EXPERT, THAT EACH PATTERN PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IS BY ITSELF AN INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONAL UNIT FOR MAKING THE MOULD. THE SAME PATT ERN CAN BE USED REPEATEDLY TO MAKE A MOULD EVERY TIME. IF MORE THAN ONE PATTERN IS USED AT A T IME, AS MANY MOULDS CAN BE OBTAINED AS THE NUMBER OF PATTERNS. HOWEVER, THE PATTERN TENDS TO G ET DAMAGED AND WORN OUT UPON REPEATED USE WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF TIMES IT CAN BE USED. AC CORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PATTERNS PURCHASED AND SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS LEASED CLEARLY R EVEALS THAT THESE ARE ENTITLED FOR 100% DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE AND REVERSE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 9. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. , !' , (AKBER BASHA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( -' -' -' -') )) ) DATED 04 TH MAY 2011 ./ $01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 ITA 1103/K/1997 PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD.. A.Y.93 -94 ! 3 +4 5!4&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT PARAM SHUBHAM VANIJYA LTD., 7, COUNCIL HOUSE STREET, KOLKATA-700 001. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-VI, KOLKATA. 3 . $ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. $ / CIT KOLKATA 4<= +$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,4 +/ TRUE COPY, ! $>/ BY ORDER, 1 /ASSTT REGISTRAR .
