Judgements by keralaguest

VIEWS: 18 PAGES: 7

									(2010) 019 STR 0153
In Re : Flame Enterprises Private Ltd.
Before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II Shri P. Ayyam Perumal
Order-in-Appeal No. PII/PAP/188/2009 10 September, 2009
Counsel: Shri B.R. Kulkarni, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent.
Order
This is an appeal received from M/s. Flame Enterprises Private Ltd., Kolhapur (hereinafter referred as the
appellant) against OIO No. 12/ST/JTC/2008 dated 12-12-2008. The brief facts involved in the appeal are that
the appellant was issued with a SCN dated 26-5-2005 alleging that he undertook job work (heat treatment) for
his customers, but had not obtained service tax registration under the category of Business Auxiliary Service
(hereinafter referred as BAS) during the period from 10-9-2004 to 31-12-2004 and accordingly he was directed
to show cause as to why the service tax amount of Rs. 10,19,761/- which includes education cess also should
not be recovered under section 8 of the Finance Act 1994 (hereinafter referred as the Act), interest under section
75 should not be charged and penalty under sections 70, 77 and 78 should not be imposed; that on adjudication,
the demand raised in the SCN-cum-Demand Notice was confirmed along with interest, in addition to imposing
penalty under sections 70 and 77 and equal penalty under section 78 of the Act holding that the appellants
activity of heat treatment (job work) would come under clause (v) i.e. "production of goods on behalf of the
client" to the definition of BAS.
2. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has come with the present appeal along with stay petition.
The contentions of the appellant are summarized as under :-
(i) that the appellant is engaged in heat treatment job work for his clients who send the materials for above
process under the provisions of erstwhile rule 57F(4) of Modvat Credit Rules;
(ii) that the appellant is engaged in heat treatment process and the processed material requires to undergo many
more further processes to get them defined as goods and the material after heat treatment at the end of the
assessee is a material to be used for goods to be manufactured or produced (at the end of raw material suppliers)
and therefore, they can be defined as future goods;
(iii) that the process made by the appellant is not the production of goods as imagined by the lower adjudicating
authority and while replying on 18-7-2005, the appellant has enclosed the Chartered Engineers Certificate No.
AC/CE/2005/10 dated 22-7-2005, wherein it has been certified that the company (the appellant) undertook the
job work of heat treatment i.e. Annealing, Toughening, Carburizing etc. which is a process incidental or
ancillary to the completion of a manufacturing product;
(iv) that on the basis of the said certificate, the activity conducted by the appellant is to be treated as excludible
from the ambit of the service tax taking into consideration the definition of BAS prior to Budget 2005;
(v) that the penalty was imposed without authority of law, in as much as the case of the appellant is totally
covered under section 73(3) of the Act which prevents or prohibits the penal action against the appellant.
3. PH was held on 7-9-2009 at 02.30 PM. Shri B. R. Kulkarni, Power of attorney of the appellant company,
appeared before me at 02.30 PM. None appeared from departments side despite intimation. During the hearing,
he has submitted that the issue involved in the appeal is non payment of service tax under Business Auxiliary
Service (BAS in short) during the period covering from 10-9-2004 to 31-12-2004. In this regard, he has
submitted that his client is not liable to pay service tax under BAS, in as much as that the goods which
underwent heat treatment, were returned back to the original supplier, who in turn, after undertaking some
process, removed the said goods on payment of duty. He has further submitted that since the excise duty is paid
on the value of the final product which includes job charges also, the question of demanding service tax under
BAS does not arise and if so, it will amount to double taxation.
3.1 He has further undertaken to produce copies of invoices of the raw material supplier/original supplier
evidencing the payment of Central Excise duty on the final products.
3.2 As promised, the Consultant/the appellant submitted copies of invoices issued covering the period under
dispute.
4. I have gone through the case records including record of PH and copies of invoices of raw material
suppliers/original suppliers evidencing payment of Central Excise duty on the final product. After dispensing
with pre-deposit, I take the main appeal itself for final decision. The lone issue to be decided in the present
appeal is that whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under BAS for undertaking the job work of heat
treatment on the raw materials supplied by his customers. The lower authority has held that the appellants
activity i.e. heat treatment would fall under clause (v) i.e. "production of goods on behalf of the clients", to the
definition of BAS. Whereas the appellant claims that he received the goods for job work under 57F(4) challans
and after undertaking the heat treatment, the same are returned to the customers, who have sent the raw
materials for heat treatment and after undertaking further process by the raw material suppliers, final products
are cleared on payment of Central Excise duty; that to support his contention, the appellant has also produced
Chartered Engineers Certificate dated 22-7-2005 supra, wherein it has been certified that the heat treatment is a
process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufacturing product. During the hearing, the consultant,
who appeared on behalf of the appellant, has undertaken to produce the copies of the invoices of the raw
materials suppliers/original suppliers evidencing payment of Central Excise duty on the final products; that as
promised by him, he has produced the copies of the invoices covering the material period prepared under
Central Excise law wherein it has been found that the final products were cleared on payment of Central Excise
duty.
4.1 Perusal of the record reveals that the activity of heat treatment undertaken by the appellant does not amount
to manufacture. However, the goods which undergone heat treatment were returned back to the original
suppliers, who in turn, used the same in the manufacture of final products and cleared the same on payment of
Central Excise duty. It is settled law that the job worker gets job charges which charges are to be included in the
final products on which Central Excise duty is payable. The basic intention to impose Service tax on job work
under BAS is that the job worker, like the manufacturer under Central Excise law, is also liable to pay service
tax under BAS when the final products does not attract Central Excise duty. The above principle works on the
basis of Equity. In other words, when the final product does not suffer Central Excise duty due to various
reasons, there has to be service tax and that is the reason, the BAS has been brought under the service tax net.
But in the instant case, though heat treatment does not amount to manufacture, the goods after heat treatment
were sent to the original suppliers who after using the same in the further manufacture, clear the same on
payment of Central Excise duty. In other words, the Central Excise duty has been paid on the job charges also
paid to the job workers. Presuming that in the instant case, the service tax is charged on the job worker under
BAS, there will be a situation that the job charges would suffer duty/ tax twice - first at the hands of job worker
as service tax under BAS and the second time at the hands of the original supplier as Central Excise duty. That
is the reason, the Central Government has issued Notification No. 8/2005 S.T., dated 1-3-2005 which exempts
goods produced or processed using the raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by his clients (raw
material supplier) and the goods so produced, or processed are returned back to the said supplier for use in or in
relation to manufacture of any other goods falling under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on which appropriate
duty is payable. In the instant case, the invoices produced by the appellant clearly establish that the final
products are cleared on payment of Central Excise duty. Though the said notification was issued subsequent to
the present dispute, it does not mean that the job work undertaken by the appellant would attract service tax
under BAS. Because, the processed/semi-finished goods under job work, in the instant case, were returned to
the original raw material supplier, who in turn, cleared the goods on payment of Central Excise duty. As already
discussed, if the appellant is made to pay the service tax under BAS, there will be double taxation. Under the
above circumstances, I hold that the process undertaken by the appellant is excluded from the purview of BAS
and accordingly, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax during the material period. Once the demand itself
is not sustainable on the basis of above discussion, the question of paying interest and penalty also do not arise.
4.2 Other than the merit, the impugned order is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, in as much as the SCN-
cum-Demand Notice has not been issued demanding service tax etc. under section 73(1). Instead, the demand
was issued under section 68. Further, the demand has been confirmed under the same section, instead of
confirming the demand under section 73(2).
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned OIO passed by
the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-II.
2007) 015 (I) ITPJ 0073 :(2007) 008 STJ 0256 :(2007) 005 STR 0074

In re: Anod Plasma Spray Ltd. ()

FINANCE ACT, 1994
--Repair maintenance and service--Repair of old and used machinery parts on job work basisLevy of service
tax--Assessee engaged in job of repairing of old and used parts of machinery/dies on job work basis was
insisted to take registration under service tax provisions and pay tax accordingly. Assessee observing the
directions started paying tax, which was not objected by department. Subsequently, the adjudicating officer
decided the show-cause notice and held that the process of repairs and maintenance of parts of machinery/dies
was manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly assessee was
asked to pay duty and penalty for not observing the provisions of Central Excise Act. Assessee in appeal argued
that when he was paying service tax as per directions of department, he could not be asked to pay Central
Excise duty and department could not take two views for the same process. Held: When service tax had been
collected by revenue for repair and maintenance service, it cannot charge duty holding the processes as
|manufacture| and also department cannot have two views for the same process. Therefore, when department
had accepted service tax, it cannot demand central excise duty for the same process.
Finance Act, 1994 Section 65
Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 2(f)


2007 (5) S.T.R. 74 (Commr-Appl)
In re : Anod Plasma Spray Ltd.
In the CC & CE (Appeal), Kanpur Shri G.S. Narang
Order-in-Appeal Nos. 398-399-CE/APPL/KNP/2006 30 August 2006
Counsel: Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate, for the Assessee.
ORDER
These appeals have been filed by M/s. Anod Plasma Spray Ltd., 99 Uptron Estate, Panki, Kanpur (hereinafter
referred as "appellant No. 1") and Shri Pradeep Kumar Tandon, Executive Director of appellant No. 1
(hereinafter referred as "appellant No.2") against the common Order-in-Original No. 13/Joint Commissioner,
/2005 dated 26-12-05 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant were engaged in doing job of repairing of old and used part of
machinery/dies and in manufacture of new parts/dies for machinery either on job work basis or on their own
accounts which are removed on sale basis. These jobs were undertaken by them by using the process of Plasma
Coating, Tig Welding, Vacuum heat treatment and other allied activities. The manufacturing premises of the
appellant No. 1 was visited by a team of Central Excise Officers on 8-3-02 in order to ascertain whether the
activities undertaken by the appellant No. 1 amounts to manufacture. It was ascertained that they have cleared
the goods valued at Rs. 58,85,894/- in excess of the SSI exemption limit of one crore involving Central Excise
duty of Rs. 8,92,848/- during the years 1998-99 to 2002-03. Shri Pradeep Kumar Tandon, Executive Director of
the appellant No. 1, was present, on the spot who in his statement recorded under section 14 of Central Excise
Act, 1944, stated that they are receiving various components from their customers for detection of damage. In
case of new parts and dies, the surface cleaning was done either by blasting or grinding or both and the process
undertaken by them are identification of cracks by using dye penetration; repair by Tig welding; finishing by
polishing or grinding; vacuum heat treatment (if required); coating and inspection. It was further stated that the
components, which is purchased from the market are after being subjected to required process are removed on
sale basis. Since, the process undertaken by them results in longer life and increased efficiency of machines; the
process undertaken results in value addition of about 8 times on the value of components, and the process were
vital to make such components workable, identifiable, and marketable, the departments was of the view that the
process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and as such are liable to Central Excise duty.
Accordingly, a show cause notice to this effect was issued to the appellants vide C.No. V
(15)Off/MP/Adj/44/04/8139-40 dated 5-5-04 demanding Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 8,92,848/- along
with interest.
3. The Adjudicating Authority after taking into consideration the facts on the case, show-cause notice and
defence put forth by the appellants, confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty
equivalent to duty under section 11AC of the Act and Rs. 25,000/- under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
read with 173Q of Central Excised Rules, 1944 on appellant No. 1 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on appellant No.
2 vide the impugned Order-in-Original.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeals on the grounds that:
1. in respect of job work being done by them they were following the procedure contained in Notification No.
214/86-CE dated 1-3-1986 and the provision of Finance Act, 1944 relating to Service Tax;
2. their declarations filed by appellant No. 1 under rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification
No. 36/2001-CE(NT) dated 26-6-2001 has not been considered by the adjudicating authority in which nature of
the work process, classification value of clearances and respective notifications were mentioned;
3. the job work undertaken by them was exempted under Notification No. 70/92 dated 17-6-92 as amended as
the same were supplied to specific undertaking of Ministry of Defence GOI;
4. no attempt has been made by adjudicating authority to enquire the value of rocket barrel assembly and other
armaments received to arrive at the correct assessable value from the supplier i.e. Ministry of Defence GOI
5. the department has forced the appellant No. 1 to take Service Tax registration, pay Service Tax under the
head of maintenance and repair, file ST-3 return which the appellant No. 1, doing as a law abiding person.
Further, this defence of the appellant No. 1 has not been discussed in the adjudication order;
6. the invoking of extended period is not legal as vide their declaration, the fact of repair work was in the
knowledge of the department;
7. the adjudicating authority has erred in holding that the activity/process undertaken by them is liable to be
held as manufacture under section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944;
8. penalty imposed are liable to be set aside as the process does not amounts to manufacture. A catena of
judgment of Apex Court High Courts and CESTAT have been relied upon.
5. In order to grant natural justice to the appellants, date of personal hearing was fixed on 19-7-06. Shri Amit
Awasthi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the grounds of appeal. Fresh submission
dated 19-7-06 was also submitted to prove their case.
Discussion & Findings
6. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, Order-in-Original, grounds of appeal and written
submission filed at the time of personal hearing. Following issues merits decision:
(i) whether extended period is invokable;
(ii) whether the activities undertaken by the appellant No. 1 are liable to be held as manufacture;
(iii) whether interest and penalties under the provision of Central Excise Law are leviable on both the
appellants.
7. On the issue of invoking extended period, the appellant has contested that the matter was in the knowledge of
the department vide the declarations filed by appellant No. 1 under rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read
with Notification. No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as all the information with regard to nature of the
work being undertaken by them, classification value of clearances and applicable exemption notifications.
Reliance on catena of decision of Apex Court and CESTAT has been placed.
8. As against the above, the adjudicating authority has held that value of clearances of the process undertaken as
job work as well as the fact that the process does not amounts to manufacture in their view has not been
specifically mentioned in the declaration; they have not disclosed before Service Tax officers that under one
circumstances it will amount to manufacture and in other circumstances it will not amount to manufacture; the
value of clearance when clubbed with value of other goods manufacture exceed the value of clearances
exempted under the relevant notification, which is sufficient to prove suppression of value of clearances with
intention to evade payment of duty.
9. It is observed that the appellant has failed to prove that as to why the details of the disputed process of job
work as well as value of such job work has not been submitted to the department. Further, there is nothing on
record to show that full facts were disclosed before the Service Tax wing of the department. Under the
circumstances, the claim of appellant No. 1, that matter was in the knowledge of the department is not
sustainable and the rulings relied upon by them are distinguished due to the same reason. Accordingly, I hold
that the extended period has been rightly invoked by the department and demand is not liable to be quashed on
the ground of limitation.
10. On the issue whether the process undertaken amounts to manufacture, the adjudicating authority has held
that the process of Plasma Coating & Vacuum heat treatment process and the welding result in increase in life
of the components and help in producing proper quality goods and with the process a different commercial
product having distinct character and use emerges. Reliance has been placed on note 6 of section XVI of
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of UOI v. J.G. Glass Industries
(1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)) and CCE v. Rajasthan Chemical Works Ltd. (1991 (55) E.L.T. 444 (S.C).
11. As against this the appellant has pleaded that job work undertaken by them were exempted under
Notification No. 70/92 dated 17-6-92 as amended as the same were supplied to specified undertakings of
Ministry of Defence GOI; the process undertaken does not amounts to manufacture as per the provisions
contained in section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 after placing reliance on catena of judgment including
Apex Court ruling in the case of M/s. East India Transformers & Switch Gears(P) Ltd. (1997 (92) E.L.T. 449
(S.C.). They were required to pay Service Tax on the said process of job work which they are doing as a law
abiding citizen and that the ruling relied upon are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of instant
case.
12. It is observed that law is settled as per the views taken by Apex Court consistently that the moment, there is
a transformation into the new commodity commercially known as a distinct and new commodity having its own
character, use and name whether it be a result of one process or a series of process, manufacture takes place.
The transformation of the goods into new and different articles should be such that it is known as different
articles in the commercial world. The same views has expressed by Apex Court in the case of Gramophone Co.
of India Ltd. v. CCE (1999 (114) E.L.T. 770 (S.C.)). The view has been further affirmed by Apex Court in the
case of Meltax (I) (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi (2004 (165) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.)). Applying the ratio of above
findings of Apex Court to the impugned case, it is revealed that there is no change in old and used machines
received by the appellant either in terms of character or quality or name of the machines. Accordingly, I am of
the opinion that since the process of tig welding, plasma coating and vacuum heat treatment have not resulted in
emergence of a new product and due to the same reason the process undertaken by the appellant, does not
amount to manufacture.
13. On the issue of applicability of IInd test laid down in J.G. Glass case i.e. a process will amount to
manufacture, if the commodity which was already in existence will serve no purpose or will have no
commercial purpose but for the process; it is observed that the test will apply to semi finished goods which can
be classified in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 whereas in the instant case the goods have been sent to appellant
for doing particular process amounting to repair which restore the efficiency of the machine only.
14. On the issue of applicability of chapter note 6 of section XVI, it is observed that since the activities
undertaken by the appellant are covered under repair, the chapter note will not apply as it is applicable to
processes conducted on semi finished goods and the semi finished goods loose their identity whereas in the
instant case the goods were old & used machines and do not loose their identity even after the conducting the
process involved in the instant appeal.
15. On the appellant's plea that their activity is repair, the appellant has placed reliance on Apex court ruling
besides catena of judgments in the case of M/s. East India Transformers & Switch Gears (P) Ltd. (1997 (92)
E.L.T. 449 (S.C.)) in which it has been held that repair of old transformers will not amount to manufacture. It is
observed that the facts of the instant case are similar to relied upon case. Accordingly, I take cognizance of the
same and hold that the process undertaken is repair.
16. Further, the appellant has pleaded that the appellant is paying Service Tax under the repair & maintenance
for their processes. On this issue, I am of the opinion that when Service Tax is being levied and collected by the
department from the appellant for the processes undertaken, the department cannot charge duty after holding the
processes as 'MANUFACTURE' as the department cannot take two views for the same processes. There is
nothing on record to show that the appellant has been directed not to pay Service Tax as the processes
undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that
department has accepted the contention of the appellant that processes undertaken are covered under repair
service.
17. It is a settled law that when duty is not demandable penalty on appellant No. 1 & 2 is not imposable. Hence,
penalties are set aside.
18. Accordingly, the Order-in-Original is set aside and appeals are allowed.
(2008) 023 (I) ITPJ 0072 :(2008) 014 STJ 0072 :(2008) 011 STR 0037 :(2008) 015 STT 0139 :(2008) 017 VST
0247

CCE v. Bhiwadi Cylinders (P) Ltd. ()

FINANCE ACT, 1994
--Management, maintenance or repair service--Repair work undertaken without a maintenance contractLevy of
service tax--Assessees manufactured LPG cylinders and also undertook the heat treatment/repair under contract
rate. Assessee during the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2004 received certain amount towards repair and paid
tax under the repair and maintenance services and subsequently claimed benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-
ST, dated 20-6-2003. Revenue disallowed benefit of Notification on the ground that assessees had not shown
the value of goods used for repair separately and distinctly and confirmed demand with interest and also
imposed penalty. However, Commissioner relied on. Board|s Circular No. B-1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005
held that if repair work was undertaken without a maintenance contract no service tax was leviable prior to 16-
6-2005 and set aside the demand. Held: Since assessees were only repairing old gas cylinders and for taking
such repair, they had entered into rate contract thus this contract for repair could not be treated as contract for
maintenance. Further, the Board|s Circular dated 27-7-2005, which had been relied on, clarified that when only
repair work was undertaken without a maintenance contract then service tax was not attracted for the period
prior to 16-6-2005. Demand was set aside.
Finance Act, 1994 Section 65(64)


Commr. of C. Ex., Jaipur-I v. Bhiwadi Cylinders (P) Ltd.
In the CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Court No. I) Justice S.N. Jha, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan,
Member (T)
Final order No. ST/48/2008, in Appeal No. ST/329/2006 18 February 2008
Counsel : Shri B.K. Singh, DR, for the Appellant Shri Atul Gupta, C.S. for the Respondent.
Order
M, Veeraiyan, Member CD).
This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 38 (MPM)ST/JPR-
1/2006 dated 28-4-2006.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :-
(a) The respondent is a manufacturer of LPG Cylinders. They also undertake heat treatment/repair of old LPG
cylinder under rate contract for oil companies like IOCL, BPCL and HPCL.
(b) Maintenance and repair services were brought under the service tax net with effect from 1-7-20033.
(c) The respondent during the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2004 received a sum of Rs. 55,87,546 towards such
repair.
(d) On the insistence of the department, they paid tax on the said repair services treating it as falling under the
"Repair and Maintenance" services and paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,112. The tax was paid claiming the benefit of
Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20-6-2003 on an amount which was the gross amount minus the cost of
material used in repairs.
(e) The Original Authority held that the respondent was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-
ST as they had not shown the value of such goods used for repair separately and distinctly in the bills and
consequently confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,34,891 along with interest and imposed penalties under different
Sections of the Finance Act, 1994.
(f) The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the repair services rendered by the respondent could not be
considered to be under a maintenance contract or agreement He relied on the Board's Circular No. B-1/6/2005-
TRU dated 27-7-2005, which clarified that if only repair work was undertaken without a maintenance contract
no service tax was leviable prior to 16-6-2005.
4. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the repairing of the old gas cylinder of various LPG
companies was done under rate contract; the assessee did not mention separately the cost of materials used in
repairing the gas cylinders and, therefore, gross amount charged by them become taxable. Therefore, he wants
the order of Commissioner (Appeals) to be set-aside.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The section 65(64) of the Finance Act,
1994 which defines the service of "Maintenance and Repair" is reproduced below :-
"Maintenance or Repair" means any service provided by-
(i) any person under a contract or an agreement; or
(ii) a manufacturer or any person authorized by him, in relation to,-
(a) Maintenance or repair including reconditioning or restoration, or servicing .of arty goods or equipment,
excluding motor vehicle; or
(b) Maintenance or management of immovable property;)
6. In the present case, the respondent is only undertaking repair of the old cylinders. Contract for maintenance is
distinct from a contract for repair. Maintenance involves periodical checkups and services to prevent failure of
the machinery. Repair arises after the machine fails or gives problem. Maintenance may or may not involve
repair. There may be cases where no repair need be undertaken of the machinery during the entire period of
maintenance contract. Maintenance is in the nature of preventive action. Admittedly, the respondent was only
repairing old gas cylinders and for taking such repair, they have entered into a rate contract. This contract for
repair cannot be treated as a contract for maintenance. Further, the Board's circular dated 27-7-2005, which has
been relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) clarifies that when only repair work was undertaken without a
maintenance contract then service tax was not attracted for the period prior to 16-6-2005.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore,
we hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the department.
8. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court on 18-2-2008)

								
To top