ACIT 14(1), MUMBAI V. EXCEL ICE SERVICES, MUMBAI

ITA 4990/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 499019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T T JACOB
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 28; 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 4990/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2004-05 THE ACIT - 14(1), 201, 2 ND FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 VS. M/S. EXCEL ICE SERVICES, 140K, CAVEL CROSS LANE NO. 7, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002 PAN-AAAFE 0495P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.T. JACOB RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 24.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-25 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND DISPOSE OF THIS MAT TER EX PARTE ON MERIT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE A. R. WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS IN VIEW OF TAXATION LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 SINCE ITS EXPORT TURNOVER DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR EXCEEDS RS.10 CRORE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE A.R. ATTENDED AND FILED THE DETAILS. ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 2 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT AS PER TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005, WHEREIN AN EXPORTER HAVING EXPORT TURNOVER EX CEEDING RS.10 CRORES, THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB WILL ONLY BE TREATED AT PAR W ITH DUTY DRAWBACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPORTIONATE INCREASE OF PROFITS DERIVI NG FROM EXPORT IF IT FULFILLS THE FOLLOWING TWO CONDITIONS :- (I) IT HAD AN OPTION TO CHOOSE EITHER DUTY DRAWBACK OR DUTY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCHEME; AND (II) THE RATE OF DRAWBACK CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CUS TOMS DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER ANY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCHEME. HENCE, THE WORKING OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 HHC IS REWO RKED OUT AS PER ENCLOSED ANNEXURE KEEPING IN VIEW THE AMENDMENT TO TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 AS DEPB IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERE D AS EXPORT INCENTIVE AS ASSESSEES TURNOVER IS ABOVE RS.10 CRORES AND TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE DEPB RATES WERE LOWER THAN THE DU TY DRAWBACK RATED ON THE DATE OF EXPORT AND ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON SUCH DEPB RECEIPTS IS DISALLOWED. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF 10% OF INDIRECT COST ATTRIBUT ABLE TO EXPORT INCENTIVES RESTRICTED TO 10% OF INDIRECT EXPENSES IS NOT ALLOW ED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80 HHC. THE COMMISSION RECEIPT OF RS.5,93,840/- CONSIDERED AS EXPORT INCENTIVE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED U/S.28(III A)/(IIIB)/(IIIC)/(IIID)/(IIIE), HENCE THE SAME IS ALSO NOT TREATED AS EXPORT INCENT IVE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN RESPECT OF GROUND NUMBER 2 IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, THE COND ITIONS LAID DOWN ARE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO AS THE DEPB I S NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS EXPORT INCENTIVE, AS ASSESSEES TURNOVER IS ABOV E RS.10 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE DEPB RATES WERE LOWER THAN THE DUTY DRAWBACK RATES ON THE DATE OF EXPORT AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE IT ACT 1961 O N SUCH DEPB RECEIPTS IS DISALLOWED. FURTHER THE CLAIM OF 10% OF INDIRECT COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXPORT INCENTIVES RESTRICTED TO 10% OF INDIRECT COS TS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXPORT ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 3 INCENTIVES RESTRICTED TO 10% OF INDIRECT EXPENSES I S NOT ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 HHC. THE COMMISSION RECEIP T OF RS.17,48,780/- CONSIDERED AS THE EXPORT INCENTIVE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 28 (IIIA)/(IIIB)/(IIIC)/(IIID)/(IIIE), AND THE SAME IS ALSO NOT REATED AS EXPORT INCENTIVE. BUT THE HONORABLE ITAT MUMBAI, IN THEIR DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF M/S. V. J. SILK HOUSE LTD. AND M/S. GLENMA RK LABORATORIES LTD. HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT ARISING ON SALE OR TRANSF ER OF DEPB IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF DEPB LICENSE ON THE DATE OF R ECEIPT THAT THIS IS A FACE VALUE OF THE LICENSE AS THE EXPORT INCOME AND TO REDUCE THE SAME FROM THE DIRECT COST OF TRADING GOODS EXPORTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE DIRECT COST. AND THE APPELLANT SUBS EQUENTLY, HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONORABLE MU MBAI ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VERSUS ITO 29 DT R 153, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DECISION. IN VIEW OF THESE DECISIONS YOU ARE REQUESTED TO DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION AND RELIEF. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO PERSUED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ALSO GONE THROUGH T HE DECISION OF HONORABLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE O F TOPMAN EXPORTS. ADMITTEDLY THE AO IS FOUND HAVING DISALLOWED THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPORT TURNOVE R IS EXCEEDING RS.10 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FULFILL THE REQUI RED CONDITION AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS. IF THE DEPB RECEIPTS AND OTHER R ECEIPTS CREDITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT ARE REDUCED, THERE IS NEGATIVE EX PORT PROFITS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE ACT AND AS THERE IS NO ENOUGH EXPORT INCENTIVES AVAILABLE TO SET OFF THE SAME AS PER 5 TH PROVISO TO SECTION 80HHC (3) NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC IS AVAI LABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS HA S PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS, OF THE HONORABLE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI. THE HONORABLE ITAT SP ECIAL BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB IS CHARGEABLE TO T AX UNDER SECTION 28 (IIIB) AT THE TIME OF ARROW OF INCOME, THAT IS WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR DEPB IS FILED WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO E XPORTS AND PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB REPRESENTING THE ACCESS OF SALE PROCEED S OF DEPB OVER ITS FACE VALUE IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) AT THE TIME OF ITS SALES. SINCE THE HONORABLE SPECIAL BENCH MUMB AI HAS HELD THAT THE DEPB ACCRUES PURSUANT TO EXPORTS AND WHEN THE APPLIC ATION IS FILED WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB I S CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 28 (IIIB), THE STAND OF AO THAT THERE IS NO ENOUGH EXPORT INCENTIVES AVAILABLE TO BE SET OFF AS PER FIFTH PRO VISO TO SECTION 80 HHC (3) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB ACCRUED IN ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 4 PURSUANT TO EXPORT SALES DURING THE YEAR TO WHICH A PPLICATION IS MADE BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, TO THE EXTENT OF S UCH AMOUNT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE SAME AS PER 5 TH PROVISO OF SECTION 80HHC (3) OF THE IT ACT. SIMILARLY AT THE TIME OF S ALE OF DEPB, THE EXCESS OF SALE PROCEEDS OF DEPB OVER ITS FACE VALUE IS CONS IDERED AS PROFIT UNDER SECTION 28 (IIID) OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE DEPB CREDITED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT REALIZED ON SALE OF DEPBB LICENSES. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONORABLE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI, IN THE CAS E OF TOPMAN EXPORTS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE ADMISS IBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC, AFTER OBTAINING THE REQUISITE DETAI LS AND ASCERTAINING THE EXTENT OF DEPB ACCRUED IN PURSUANT TO EXPORT SALES D URING THE YEAR APPLICATION FILED AND PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALE OF DEPB LICENSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS OF THE CURRENT YEAR, IF AN Y. TO THIS EXTENT THROUGH THIS GROUND THE APPELLANT COULD GET PARTIAL RELIEF. 6. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT R ECEIVED ON SALE OF DEPB ENTITLEMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT PROFIT CHARGEABLE U/ S.28(IID) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S.28(IIIB) AT THE TIME OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND ON TRUE INTERPRETATION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX AND IN PARTICULAR SECTION 80HHC READ WITH SECTION 28(IIID) WHETHER, THE ENTIR E AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF DEPB ENTITLEMENTS REPRESENTS PROFITS CHARG EABLE U/S.28(IIID) OR THE PROFIT REFERRED TO THEREIN REQUIRES ANY ARTIFICIAL COST TO BE IMPUTED AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WHETHER THE ENTIRE MOUNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF DEPB EN TITLEMENT REPRESENTS PROFIT CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OR THE PROFIT REFERRED TO THEREIN REQUIRED ANY ARTIFICER COST TO BE INTERPOLATED? ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 5 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPUT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80HHC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. TOPMAN EXPORTS? 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND INT EH CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT, ONL Y THE PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE SALE OF DEPB THAT IS THE AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF SALE PR OCEEDS OVERT THE FACE VALUE IS COVERED U/S.28(IIID) AND NOT THE ENTIRE AM OUNT RECEIVED ON SALE DEPB ENTITLEMENTS REPRESENTS PROFIT CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA), WHICH WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SINCE BEEN REVERSED B Y THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KALPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS REPORTED IN 233 CTR 313 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: AS REGARDS THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC, THE L EGISLATURE SUBSTITUTED EXPLANATION (BAA) IN SECTION 80HHC SO AS TO EXCLUDE 90 PER CENT. OF THE PROFITS RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF DEP B FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80H HC AND INSERTED THE SECOND AND THIRD PROVISOS TO SECTION 80HHC(3). THE SECOND PROVISO PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE HA VING AN EXPORT TURNOVER NOT EXCEEDING RS. 10 CRORES, THE PROFITS C OMPUTED UNDER SECTION 80HHC(3) SHALL BE INCREASED BY 90 PER CENT. OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28(IIID). THE THIRD PROVISO PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE HAVING AN EXPORT TURNOVER EXCEE DING RS. 10 CRORES, THE PROFITS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 80HHC(3) SHALL BE INCREASED BY 90 PER CENT. OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28(IIID) SUBJECT TO THE TWO CONDITIONS SET OUT THEREIN. WHAT CONSTITUTES PROFITS UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) IS THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB CREDIT AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT WHICH T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO UNDER THE DEPB SCHEME. IN OTHER WORD S, THE AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE DEPB WOULD CONSTITUTE PROF ITS OF BUSINESS UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) AND MERELY BECAUSE A PART OF SUCH PROFITS OF BUSINESS (FACE VALUE) WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE YEA R IN WHICH THE CREDIT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE A GROUN D TO HOLD THAT SUCH PRO-FIT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) . WHERE THE FACE ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 6 VALUE OF THE DEPB CREDIT IS OFFERED TO TAX AS BUSINE SS PROFITS UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CREDIT AC CRUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN ANY FURTHER PROFIT ARISING ON TRANSF ER OF THE DEPB CREDIT WOULD BE TAXED AS PROFITS OF BUSINESS UNDER SECTION 28(IIID) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE DEPB CREDIT TO OK PLACE. THERE IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE FROM WHICH THE ISSUE C AN BE LOOKED AT. THE DEPB CREDIT TO WHICH AN EXPORTER IS E NTITLED IS A FORM OF AN EXPORT INCENTIVE. NO PART OF THE CREDIT THAT IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE DEPB SCHEME CAN FALL FOR CLASSIFICATION UN DER CLAUSE (IIIB) OF SECTION 28 WHICH DEALS WITH CASH ASSISTANCE, REC EIVED OR RECEIVABLE AGAINST ANY SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. CLAUSE (IIIB) WAS ENACTED AT A TIME WHEN THE EXPORT INCENT IVES THAT WERE AVAILABLE WERE (I) IMPORT ENTITLEMENT LICENCES ; (I I) CASH COMPENSATORY SUPPORT ; AND (III) DUTY DRAWBACK. THE DEPB SCHEME WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE WHEN CLAUSE (IIIB) CAME TO BE ENACTED INTO SECTION 28 BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 1990. THE DEPB SCHE ME WAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 19 97. CLAUSE (IIID) OF SECTION 28 WAS INSERTED BY THE AMENDING ACT OF 2 005 WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1998. THE VALUE OF THE DEPB CREDIT CA NNOT BE REGARDED AS A CASH ASSISTANCE WHICH IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY A PERSON AGAINST EXPORTS UNDER ANY SCHEME OF THE GOVE RNMENT OF INDIA. IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THE SPEECH OF THE FINANC E MINISTER THAT THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (IIID) IN SECTION 28 W AS MADE WITH A VIEW TO TAX ONLY THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB CREDIT. DEPB CREDIT WAS I NTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FORM APRIL 1, 1997, WHICH WAS AFTER THE INSE RTION OF CLAUSE (IIIB) IN SECTION 28 ; SECTION 28(IIIB) REFERS TO C ASH ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT PURSUA NT TO A SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON TH E TRANSFER OF THE DEPB CREDIT IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO A SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT W ITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (IIIC) ; AND WHEN SECTION 28(IIID ) SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH PROFITS REALISED ON THE TRANSFER OF THE DEPB CR EDIT, IT WOULD BE IMPERMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF FIRST PRINCIPLE TO BIF URCATE THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB. THE ENTIRETY OF THE SALE CONSIDER ATION WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 28(IIID). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT DECISION IN THE CASE OF KALPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS 233 CTR 313, WE ALL OW THE REVENUES APPEAL. ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 7 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR F BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 4990/M/2010 8 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 23 .0 6 .2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 24 .0 6 .2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______