VIFOR PHARMA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 18 & 19, MUMBAI

ITA 504/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9186 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) M/S. VIFOR PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.1, UDYOG NAGAR ESTATE, SV ROAD, GOREGAON, MUMBAI 400002 PAN:AAACV4180F (APPELLANT ) VS. THE ACIT, CIR.18 &19, AAYKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, MK ROAD, MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAS HMIKANT C. MODI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA DATE OF HEARING 25/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/04/2015 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-39,MUMBAI DATED 17/12/2012 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY TREATED AS ADDI TION TO BUILDING AND FURNITURE: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, MUMBAI ERRED IN TREATING THE ADDITIONS MADE TO PLANT & MACHINERY AS ADDITIONS MA DE TO BUILDING AND FURNITURE. ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ADDITIONS BE TREATED AS ADDITIONS MADE TO PLANT & MACHINERY. 2. DEPRECIATION ON ADDITIONS MADE TO PLANT & MACHIN ERY ALLOWED AS PER THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON BUILDINGS AND FURNITUR E: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, MUMBAI ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE RATE S PRESCRIBED FOR BUILDING AND FURNITURE INSTEAD OF PLANT AND MACHINE RY BASED ON ABOVE GROUND. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DEPRECIATION AND ADDITIO NAL DEPRECIATION ON THE ADDITIONS BE ALLOWED UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED FOR PLANT & MACHINERY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND SURGICAL ITEMS MORE PARTICULARLY STERILE WATER FOR INJECTIONS BP/IP/USP IN PLASTIC AMPOULES WITH 5 ML AND 10 ML VOLUMES. TH E ASSESSEE HAS INSTALLED BFS MACHINERY NO.17 & 18 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION FOR WHICH IT REQUIRES CLEAN ROOMS, LDPE PLASTIC GRANULES CONVEYING SYSTEM AND ELECTRIC SUPPLY. CLEAN ROOMS ARE REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PREVENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION IN THE MANUFACTURING OF STERILE PHAR MACEUTICAL PRODUCTS AND, THEREFORE, INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING WORK OF C LEAN ROOMS FOR BOTH THE MACHINES AND CLEAN AIR SUPPLY TO THESE AREAS THROUG H AIR HANDLING UNIT NO.5 WERE CARRIED OUT BY M/S. AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS PVT. LT D AND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY WAS DONE BY M/S. RAJ ELECTRICAL, M/S. SAI ELECTRICAL AN D M/S. HARSHADA ELECTRICALS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUIRED BASIC GROUND FACILITY F OR WHICH PCC AND RCC ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 3 REINFORCEMENT DONE INCLUDING JOINTLESS SURFACE F INISH EPOXY FLOORING AND COVING WAS CARRIED OUT BY M/S. JAWADWALAS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 2.1 THESE FACTS ARE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PAPER BOOK FILED AT PAGE 1 &2. SOME OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED WITH REGARD TO NEW PLANT INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IN CLUDED IN THE VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS PRESCRIBED FOR PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE EXPENDITURE ALO NGWITH DATE AND PARTY NAME IS FOUND IN ANNEXURE-A, WHICH IS PART OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FOR COMPLETENESS OF FACTS THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: DATE PARTY NAME AMOUNT 13-5-08 MUMTAZ ENGINEERING WORKS 17550 04.06.08 RAJ ENTERPRISES (NEW) 27198 12.06.08 RAJ ENTERPRISES (NEW) 27005 13.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 1983837 16.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 231293 23.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 467017 02.07.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 416315 03.07.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 13854.2 24.07.08 RAJ ENTERPRISES (NEW) 37166 09.08.08 JAWADWALAS CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD. 203492 26.08.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 900005 26.08.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 512656 26.08.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 82743 26.08.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 395249 01.08.08 SAI ELECTRC 89250 01.09.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 548773 01.09.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 160957 01.09.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 724443 03.10.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 637455 03.11.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 150914 12.11.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 493996 8121168 ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 4 KSEZ 05.05.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 357328 11.06.08 SALLONE & PARCO ENGINEERING CO. 583190 19.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 272249.5 19.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 386191 19.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 285205 19.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 140474 19.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 111580 19.06.08 AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. 54965 2191182 THE AFOREMENTIONED CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN CURRED ON PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE AO AS EXPENSES I NCURRED ON BUILDING AND ACCORDINGLY, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEPRECIATIO N RATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS B EEN REJECTED AND DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER RATE PRESCR IBED FOR BUILDING. 2.2 IN PARA-4, AO HAS DISCUSSED THE SAME. HE HAS O BSERVED THAT THESE COST INCLUDING MAKING ALUMINIUM WALL PARTITION, FALL CEI LING, FLOORING, SLIDING, WHICH IS PRIMARILY RELATING TO BUILDING OR FURNITURE AND FIT TINGS. THEREFORE, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS INCURRED ON BUILDING, FURNITURE AND FIT TINGS. THE AO ALSO REFERRED TO THE DEFINITION OF PLANT DESCRIBED IN SECTION 43(3 ) OF THE ACT, ACCORDING TO WHICH BUILDING AND FURNITURE AND FITTINGS DOES NOT INCLUD E PLANT AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY FINANCE ACT 2003 W.E.F. 01/04/2004. TH E DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT CASE LAW RE LIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BELONG TO A PERIOD PRIOR TO AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SE CTION 43(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT C ASE. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, HAS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 5 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD. AR DID NOT DISP UTE TO THE FINDINGS OF AO ACCORDING TO WHICH THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRE D ON WALL PARTITION, FALL CEILING, FLOORING AND SLIDING. BUT, IT IS THE CASE OF LD. AR THAT THESE WORK SHOULD BE TREATED TO BE PART OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AS W ITHOUT CARRYING OUT THESE WORKS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS WH ICH ARE REQUIRED FOR MANUFACTURING PHARMACEUTICAL ITEMS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED HUGE EXPE NDITURE ON BUILDING WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. HE SUB MITTED THAT AT PAGE-52 OF THE PAPER BOOK WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF BUILDING IS TOTAL SU M OF RS.2,13,73,424/-. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT IT WOULD BE INCORRECT IF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS FOR THE EFFICIENT WORKING OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDI NG OR FURNITURE OR FITTINGS. LD. AR CARRIED US THROUGH DETAILS FILED IN THE PAPER B OOK, WHICH IS FROM PAGES 17 TO 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN WHICH DETAILS OF BILLS REL ATING TO THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN FILED. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR TH AT THESE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE INCURRED IN RELATION TO PLANT AN D MACHINERY AND DEPRECIATION RATE APPLICABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 3.1 LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD IT AT IN THE CASE OF MADHU INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ITO, ORDER DATED 23/7/2010 IN I TA NO.4172/AHD/2007. COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PLACED ON OUR RECORD AND ALSO GIVEN TO LD. DR, WHEREIN ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS CONSISTING OF ELECTRICAL WIRES, PLUGS , CABLES, MC BOX AND ELECTRICAL ITEMS WHICH DOES NOT FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY WERE CO NSIDERED TO BE PART OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION WAS HEL D ALLOWABLE AS ON PLANT & MACHINERY IN PLACE OF LOWER DEPRECIATION APPLICABL E TO ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THE SAME LOGIC SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 6 3.2 LD. AR FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JBF INDUSTRIES LTD., ITA NO.4035/MUM/20 06 DATED 17/12/2014, COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS ALSO PLACED ON OUR RECORD AND WA S ALSO GIVEN TO LD. DR. IN THIS DECISION ALSO SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAID DOW N. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT APPROPRIATE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AO & LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE WORD PLANT HAS BEEN DEFINE D IN SECTION 43(3) AS UNDER: (3) PLANT INCLUDES SHIPS, VEHICLES, BOOKS, SCIEN TIFIC APPARATUS AND SURGICAL EQUIPMENT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSI NESS OR PROFESSION [BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE TEA BUSHES OR LIVESTOCK] [OR BUILD INGS OR FURNITURE AND FITTINGS] AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE PROVISION, DEFIN ITION OF PLANT IS INCLUSIVE IN NATURE AND NOT EXHAUSTIVE. THUS, THERE IS A WIDE S COPE FOR INCLUDING MANY ITEMS IN THE DEFINITION. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT LEGIS LATURE HAS STEPPED IN SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING BUILDING FROM THE DEFINITION OF PLANT AND SUCH AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2003 W.E.F. 2004. EARLI ER TO THIS, CONSIDERING THE WIDE SCOPE OF THE WORD PLANT VARIOUS COURTS HAVE RENDE RED DECISION IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHERE IN BUILDING REQUIRED SPECIFICALLY FO R THE PURPOSE OF PLANT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED PART OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. ACCORDI NGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAID BUILDING BEING INTEGRAL PART OF THE PLANT WAS ALS O IN THE NATURE OF PLANT. ONE OF SUCH CASE IS THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADE SH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIVALIK HATCHERIES PVT. LTD., 188 TAXAMAN 291(HP), WHEREIN CONSIDERING ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 7 THE VARIOUS EXISTING DECISIONS THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT IF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO FURTHER CAUSE OF MAN UFACTURE OR PRODUCTION, THEN THE SAME IS PLANT. IN THE SAID CASE POULTRY SHEDS, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE BIRDS FROM DISEASES BY ENSURING PROPER LIGHT AN D CIRCULATION OF AIR, PROPER SCIENTIFIC FEEDING ARRANGEMENT, PROPER ARRANGEMENT FOR COLLECTION OF MANURE AND DROPPINGS, PROPER ARRANGEMENT OF MEDICATION AND VA CCINATION AND TO INCREASE THEIR PRODUCTIVITY WAS CONSIDERED TO BE PLANT WITHIN TH E MEANING OF UNAMENDED SECTION 43(3). THUS, EARLIER TO THE AMENDMENT BROU GHT INTO STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT 2003 W.E.F. 1/4/2004 SUCH VIEW WAS POSSIBLE BUT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT INTO STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE VIDE WHICH BUILDING OR FURNITURE AND FITTINGS HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED, SUCH VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS THE SAID VIEW WOULD BE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ST ATUTE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALL THE PWERS TO PROVIDE DEFINITION OF A WORD AND SPECIFICA LLY WHEN SUCH DEFINITION IS INCLUSIVE LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO RESTRICT THE SCO PE OF A WORD. THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE AN D IN THE CLARIFICATION AND IN THE NOTES OF CLAUSES VIDE WHICH AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT I NTO THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT 2003, 260 ITR 128 (ST.), THE RELEVANT PORTION A T PAGE 208, IT IS EXPLAINED AS UNDER: CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS REGARDING DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS RELEVANT TO INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR P ROFESSION THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE(3) OF S ECTION 43 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION PLANT IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER AND FURTH ER EXCLUDES TEA BUSHES OR LIVESTOCK. THE COVERAGE OF THE TERM PLANT HAS BEEN A SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUE, WHETHER BUILDINGS OR FUR NITURE AND FITTINGS CONSTITUTE PLANT. ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 8 5.1 AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION, THE COVERAGE OF TERM PLANT WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION, PARTICULARLY ON T HE ISSUE WHETHER BUILDING OR FURNITURE AND FITTINGS CONSTITUTE PLANT AND TO CL ARIFY THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE SUCH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT. SUCH AMENDMENT BR OUGHT INTO THE STATUTE BY THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO CLEAR LEGISLATIVE INTENT T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE BENEFIT OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION BY INCLUDING BUILDING IN THE VALUE OF PLANT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIVALIK HATCHERIES LTD. (SUPRA) THE RELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE AMENDMENT. THE CASE LAW RELIE D UPON BY LD. AR DO NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESEE AS THE SAME IS NOT DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER CASE RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) DO NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME BELONG TO ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE AFOREMENTIO NED AMENDMENT AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THOSE CASE LAW CANNOT ADV ANCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO AMENDMENT IN THE STATUTORY PROVISION. THOUG H THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BUT LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE SPECIFICALLY ON EACH OF THE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NOT GONE IN TO THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE TO IDENTIFY THAT WHETHER ANY OF THE EXPENDITURE DOE S NOT BELONG TO BUILDING OR FURNITURE & FITTINGS. MAINLY FROM THE DETAILS WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO AEOLUS TECHNOVATIONS P LTD. WHICH ARE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING WORK OF CLEAN ROOMS AND ARE IN THE NA TURE OF BUILDING AND NO SPECIFIC EXPENSES WERE PLEADED BY LD. AR TO CONTEN D THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF BUILDING AND INCLUDED IN THE AMBIT OF PLANT. ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 9 5.2 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT LD. C IT(A) DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN REJECTING THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/04/201 5 01/04/2015 SD/- SD/- ( , /RAJENDRA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; $% DATED 01/04/2015 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. +, ( & ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. +, / CIT 5. -. ),%/0 , &1 &/0 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, * -, ), //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . ./ VM , SR. PS ITA NO.5O4/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10) 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 25/03/2015 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26/03/2015 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 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER