|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 436 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 466
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the assessment year 1990-91 and pertains to cross appeals by the assessee and revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A)-II, Agra.
Assessee's Appeal (Appeal No. 5205/Delhi/1995):
The issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 71,000 on account of loan creditors and disallowance of interest of Rs. 5,135. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the credits on the balance sheet, leading to scrutiny of the loans raised from friends and relatives for business purposes. The CIT(A) concluded that certain amounts advanced by cheque were genuine, directing the deletion of Rs. 55,000 while confirming the balance of Rs. 71,000 and interest.
The assessee argued that the loans were necessary for starting a new business and were obtained from close relatives and friends due to a lack of funds from previous ventures. Various legal precedents were cited to support the genuineness of the transactions. The Department contended that the funds were channeled through bank accounts suspiciously, indicating undisclosed income. However, the Tribunal found the creditors' identities established, transactions confirmed, and the small loan amounts justified, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal.
Departmental Appeal (Appeal No. 5332/Delhi/1995):
The only ground of appeal was against the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained cash creditors. Following the reasoning in the assessee's appeal, the departmental appeal was dismissed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s order on the addition of loan creditors and interest. The departmental appeal was dismissed based on similar considerations.
-
2003 (5) TMI 465
Application for staying of recovery of interest - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the requirement is to deposit the duty or penalty before the Appeal is heard under the provisions of the Act - application is not maintainable - dismissed
-
2003 (5) TMI 463
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the correct assessable value of the goods.
2. Relationship between the Appellants and M/s. Almet Corporation Ltd. (ACL).
3. Legitimacy of the demand for differential duty and imposition of penalty.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 27/92.
5. Relevance of the Supreme Court's decision in Pawan Biscuits.
6. Imposition of penalty and recovery of interest.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the correct assessable value of the goods:
The primary issue was the determination of the correct assessable value of the goods manufactured by the Appellants for M/s. ACL. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of duty based on the depot price of M/s. ACL, arguing that the transaction between the Appellants and M/s. ACL was not a sale but a transfer of goods. The Appellants contended that the assessable value should be determined on a costing basis, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Ujagar Prints v. UOI and Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, which established that the assessable value should include the value of raw materials, job work, manufacturing profits, and expenses, excluding post-manufacturing profits.
2. Relationship between the Appellants and M/s. Almet Corporation Ltd. (ACL):
The adjudicating authority had inferred a principal-agent relationship between the Appellants and M/s. ACL based on an agreement and the control M/s. ACL had over the manufacturing process. However, the judgment found no evidence to substantiate that the Appellants were employed by M/s. ACL or represented them in dealings with the Central Excise department. Thus, it concluded that the relationship between the Appellants and M/s. ACL could not be considered that of a principal and an agent.
3. Legitimacy of the demand for differential duty and imposition of penalty:
The Appellants argued that the adjudicating authority had erred in confirming the differential duty demand and imposing a penalty. The judgment noted that the adjudicating authority had relied on a Tribunal decision in Pawan Biscuits, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. It emphasized that no demand is sustainable if based on a Tribunal decision reversed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the judgment found no merit in the demand for differential duty or the imposition of penalties.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 27/92:
The adjudicating authority had invoked Notification No. 27/92, which was not alleged in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The judgment found that the adjudicating authority had traversed beyond the scope of the SCN and concluded that the notification was inapplicable in this case. It emphasized that merely because the goods were transferred to the depots of M/s. ACL did not establish a principal-agent relationship.
5. Relevance of the Supreme Court's decision in Pawan Biscuits:
The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pawan Biscuits, which clarified the method for determining the assessable value of goods manufactured on a job work basis. It reiterated that the assessable value should include the value of raw materials, job work, manufacturing profits, and expenses, excluding post-manufacturing profits. The judgment found that the adjudicating authority had erred in not following this established legal principle.
6. Imposition of penalty and recovery of interest:
Since the demand for differential duty was found unsustainable, the judgment concluded that no case for the imposition of penalty or recovery of interest survived against the Appellants. It emphasized that penalties and interest could not be imposed when the primary demand itself was invalid.
Conclusion:
The judgment set aside the Order-in-Original, allowed the appeal with all consequential reliefs, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 462
The case involved a stay application for an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the cost of manufacture of captively consumed goods. The Tribunal found that certain expenses like research and development would be included in the cost of manufacture, except for selling expenses. The application for stay was declined, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 461
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Notification No. 160/92 and demand for duty.
2. Compliance with export obligation.
3. Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order.
4. Retrospective amendment by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2001.
5. Extension of export obligation period by Licensing Authority.
6. Finality of orders and impact of retrospective amendments.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Violation of Notification No. 160/92 and demand for duty:
The assessee was initially demanded duty for violating Notification No. 160/92, which provided duty exemption contingent upon fulfilling an export obligation. The Tribunal's original order upheld this demand but dismissed penalties and confiscation, stating there was no provision for interest under the law or notification.
2. Compliance with export obligation:
The exemption claimed required the importer to undertake an export obligation equal to three times the CIF value of the capital goods over four years. The assessee failed to meet this obligation, exporting only 16% of the required value. Despite applying for an extension under the Import Policy, the Licensing Authority initially did not grant an extension.
3. Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order:
The assessee filed for rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that the confirmation of duty was based on the absence of a provision for extending the export obligation period in Notification No. 160/92. However, Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2001, retrospectively amended the notification to include such a provision.
4. Retrospective amendment by Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2001:
Section 115 amended Notification No. 160/92 retrospectively from April 20, 1992, to include a clause allowing for an extension of the export obligation period up to March 31, 2002. This amendment meant that the notification always had a provision for extension, impacting the basis of the Tribunal's original decision.
5. Extension of export obligation period by Licensing Authority:
After the retrospective amendment, the Licensing Authority granted an extension until March 31, 2002, nullifying the initial adjudication order. This extension was confirmed by a letter dated February 18, 2002, from the Foreign Trade Development Officer, which was not challenged by the Department.
6. Finality of orders and impact of retrospective amendments:
The Department argued that the finality of the Tribunal's order from November 2000 could not be affected by the retrospective amendment. However, the Supreme Court's judgment in Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing clarified that retrospective amendments could affect completed assessments, allowing for rectification of mistakes.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, necessitated a reconsideration of their original order. The rectification application was allowed, the November 2000 order was recalled, and the show cause notice was deemed premature. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in full, and the Department's application for a stay was dismissed as infructuous.
-
2003 (5) TMI 460
Issues:
1. Validity of statutory notice of demand for winding up petition.
2. Maintainability of winding up petition based on insolvency of the company.
3. Requirement of statutory notice for maintaining a winding up petition.
4. Burden of proof on the petitioner regarding insolvency of the company.
Analysis:
1. Validity of Statutory Notice of Demand:
The petitioner served a statutory notice of demand for outstanding dues at the former registered office of the company. The company contended that since the notice was not served at the registered office, the winding up petition was not maintainable. The court emphasized the necessity of serving a statutory notice at the registered office for a winding up petition. The failure to serve notice at the registered office disentitled the petitioner from claiming deemed insolvency under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Maintainability of Winding Up Petition - Insolvency Basis:
To maintain a winding up petition, a creditor must demonstrate a just debt due and the company's insolvency. The court highlighted that while the petitioner established the debt, they failed to prove the company's insolvency. The discretion to order winding up should be exercised sparingly, and in this case, the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to show the company's insolvency or inability to pay debts. The court dismissed the winding up petition due to the lack of evidence supporting the company's insolvency.
3. Requirement of Statutory Notice for Winding Up Petition:
The court reiterated that a creditor must serve a statutory notice at the registered office of the company to maintain a winding up petition. Failure to serve notice at the registered office affects the petitioner's ability to claim deemed insolvency under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures for initiating winding up proceedings.
4. Burden of Proof on the Petitioner Regarding Company's Insolvency:
In this case, the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving the company's insolvency or inability to pay debts. Despite the acknowledgment of debt by the company's erstwhile management, the petitioner did not provide additional evidence to support the claim of insolvency. The court highlighted the petitioner's obligation to present sufficient materials to establish the company's insolvency, which was not fulfilled in this case.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the winding up petition due to the lack of evidence supporting the company's insolvency. The judgment emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures, serving notices at the registered office, and providing substantial evidence of insolvency to maintain a winding up petition successfully. The decision highlighted the discretionary nature of ordering winding up and the necessity for creditors to meet the burden of proof regarding the company's financial status.
-
2003 (5) TMI 459
Issues:
1. Amendment of EA-3 Form sought by Revenue.
2. Validity of the impugned order-in-appeal.
3. Compliance with the direction of remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Amendment of EA-3 Form sought by Revenue:
The judgment addressed the Revenue's request for amending the EA-3 Form, noting it was a formal nature amendment due to a typographical error in the Department's office. The Tribunal allowed the amendment sought by the Department as it was a minor correction.
Validity of the impugned order-in-appeal:
The appeal questioned the validity of the order-in-appeal dated 2-9-2002, where the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the original order on the grounds of being non-speaking and improper. The proceedings stemmed from allegations of clandestine removal of goods by the firm, with respondents aiding in the process. Despite the initial duty demand confirmation by the adjudicating authority, it was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the authority failed to comply with the remand order, leading to the appeal seeking a proper decision.
Compliance with the direction of remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority did not properly consider the case after remand, simply endorsing the original order despite being set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized the need for the authority to respect and follow the remand order, directing a fresh decision after supplying all documents to the respondents. Consequently, the matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority for a new decision, emphasizing compliance with directions and expeditious resolution within four months from the date of the order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, sending the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision while instructing cooperation for timely resolution. The judgment highlighted the importance of following remand orders and ensuring proper consideration of facts and documents for a just decision.
-
2003 (5) TMI 458
Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay additional duty on imported vessels for breaking up under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Interpretation of the Finance Minister's Budget Speech regarding customs duty.
3. Applicability of exemption notifications under the Central Excise Rules to additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act.
4. Relevance of the manufacturing process involving power in determining additional duty liability.
5. Judicial precedents on the levy of additional duty.
Summary:
1. Liability to Pay Additional Duty:
The primary issue was whether the appellants were liable to pay additional duty on a vessel imported for breaking up under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The learned Single Judge held that the appellants were liable to pay additional duty.
2. Interpretation of Finance Minister's Budget Speech:
The appellants argued that the Finance Minister's Budget Speech for the financial year 1993-1994 indicated a lower merged duty of customs at 5% ad valorem for the ship-breaking industry. The court noted that while the Budget Speech is not law, it can be referred to for understanding the legislative intent.
3. Applicability of Exemption Notifications:
The appellants contended that under Notification No. 167/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, goods falling under Chapter 89 were exempt from excise duty if no power was used in their manufacture. They argued that since no power was used in breaking up the vessels, no additional duty was payable. The court agreed, stating that the rate of additional duty is linked to the rate of excise duty, which was nil by virtue of the notification.
4. Relevance of Manufacturing Process Involving Power:
The court distinguished between the import of a seaworthy vessel and a vessel for breaking up, noting that the latter involves no use of power in the breaking process. The court held that the dutiability of ships built in India is not relevant for determining the duty on ships imported for breaking.
5. Judicial Precedents:
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. UOI and Thermax Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, which held that additional duty can only be levied if excise duty is leviable on a like article produced or manufactured in India. The court concluded that since the excise duty on the imported vessels was nil, no additional duty was payable.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeals, set aside the Single Judge's order, and held that the appellants were not liable to pay additional duty on the imported vessels for breaking up. The court emphasized that in cases where two views are possible, the one in favor of the assessee should be adopted.
-
2003 (5) TMI 457
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi considered a case where the appellants claimed abatement for non-alloy steel ingots manufacturing during a specific period when their factory was closed. The Commissioner rejected the claim citing lack of intimation about factory closure. The appellants argued they had informed the Revenue about the closure with relevant details, even after the Compounded Levy Scheme ended. The Tribunal found the rejection unjustified and remanded the matter for further verification and hearing. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand.
-
2003 (5) TMI 456
Issues:
Violation of natural justice in passing the order.
Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs confirming a demand of Customs duty, confiscating imported goods, and imposing penalties on the appellants. The appellants were an Electronics Hardware Technology Park (EHTP) unit under the 100% Export-Oriented Scheme. They imported goods without duty payment under a specific notification but failed to meet the export obligations as required. The appellants were required to export goods worth a specified amount within a stipulated period, but they fell significantly short of the target. The approval granted to the party for duty-free imports was canceled due to non-compliance with conditions, leading to the demand for Customs duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. The appellants did not respond to show-cause notices or attend hearings, leading to the impugned order being passed based on available records.
The main ground of challenge in the appeal was the alleged violation of natural justice. The appellants claimed that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. However, it was found that the appellants did receive the show-cause notice but failed to respond or attend hearings. The plea of violation of natural justice was deemed to lack merit, and the challenge was rejected. The appellants' failure to comply with the export obligations as per the license conditions was established. They ceased to be a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) beyond a certain date, rendering them ineligible for the benefits of the notification allowing duty-free imports. The demand for Customs duty was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty imposed were considered excessive. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty amounts were reduced in light of the circumstances. The appeal was disposed of with the revised penalty amounts.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of natural justice violation, non-compliance with export obligations, and the eligibility for duty-free imports. The decision upheld the Customs duty demand while reducing the redemption fine and penalty amounts. The appellants' failure to fulfill export obligations led to the cancellation of benefits and the imposition of duties and penalties, highlighting the importance of compliance with regulatory requirements in such schemes.
-
2003 (5) TMI 455
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the decision that goods cleared beyond six months without proper permission are subject to valid demand. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 454
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding the import of urethane elastomer. The notice invoking the extended period was not signed by the Commissioner as required by law, making it invalid. The judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case was cited, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (5) TMI 453
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s. Prisma Polyfabs (Pvt.) Limited for not imposing interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal rejected the appeal as the provisions of Section 11AB were not invoked in the show cause notice, hence no interest was imposed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 452
The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a job worker for Bhor Industries Ltd., allowing discounts claimed on goods manufactured. The assessable value should be based on the cost of manufacture as per Supreme Court principles. The appellant can provide evidence of cost of manufacture within three months for reassessment of duty.
-
2003 (5) TMI 451
Issues:
1. Dispensation with the pre-deposit in Appeal Nos. C/79-81/2003-NB(A).
2. Allegations of submitting false invoices showing lower values for consignments.
3. Confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and penalties.
4. Reliance on diplomatic channel-obtained documents for import correlation.
5. Direction to deposit duty portion, stay on recovery of fines and penalties, and compliance reporting.
Issue 1: Dispensation with Pre-Deposit
The appellants in Appeal Nos. C/79-81/2003-NB(A) sought dispensation with the pre-deposit. The main contention was the reliance on the invoice and export declaration filed at Antwerp. The Tribunal found that the documents obtained through diplomatic channels were not liable to be rejected. The adjudicating authority had concluded that the transaction value declared by the importer needed to be discarded, a finding with which the Tribunal agreed. Previously, under similar circumstances, the Tribunal had directed the applicants to deposit the duty portion of the demand. In this case, the Tribunal also directed the appellant to deposit the duty portion within six weeks, with a stay on the recovery of redemption fine and penalties imposed on all appellants.
Issue 2: Allegations of False Invoices
M/s. Genuine Spares India faced allegations of submitting false invoices showing lower values for consignments imported through their supplier in Singapore. The Belgium Customs reported that the consignments were purchased by another entity from Antwerp, Belgium, at higher prices than declared. The show cause notice alleged that the correct assessable values were significantly higher than what was declared, resulting in a demand for a substantial differential duty. The adjudicating authority affirmed the demand, leading to the confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and penalties on the company and its partners.
Issue 3: Confiscation, Fines, and Penalties
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for a differential duty, leading to the confiscation of goods imported by M/s. Genuine Spares India. Additionally, a redemption fine of Rs. 1,40,000 was imposed, along with penalties of Rs. 5,60,655 on the company and Rs. 2,00,000 each on the partners. Interest under Section 28AB was also ordered. The total differential duty demanded amounted to Rs. 5,60,655.
Issue 4: Reliance on Diplomatic Channel Documents
The Tribunal considered the documents obtained through diplomatic channels, such as the invoice and export declaration filed at Antwerp, to be crucial in correlating the import made by the appellant. The Tribunal found sufficient material to support the correlation between these documents and the import, leading to the conclusion that the transaction value declared by the importer should be disregarded.
Issue 5: Direction to Deposit Duty Portion and Stay on Recovery
In line with previous orders in similar circumstances, the Tribunal directed M/s. Genuine Spares (India) Ltd. to deposit the duty portion of the demand within six weeks. A stay was granted on the recovery of the redemption fine and penalties imposed on all appellants. The appeal was scheduled for compliance reporting on 11-7-2003.
This detailed analysis covers the issues of dispensation with pre-deposit, allegations of false invoices, confiscation of goods, reliance on diplomatic channel-obtained documents, and the direction to deposit the duty portion with a stay on recovery. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made in the case.
-
2003 (5) TMI 450
Issues:
1. Appeal against order enhancing the value of imported goods.
2. Consideration of evidences and valuation rules.
3. Repeated remand of the case and adherence to directions.
4. Disregard of evidences by lower authorities.
5. Dismissal of appeal by Revenue.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order enhancing the value of imported goods due to being imported at a price lower than the normal price prevailing in the international market. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order based on evidences provided by the importer regarding clearances at lower value, leading to multiple rounds of adjudication and appeals.
2. The valuation of the goods was a key issue, with the importer arguing that the rejection of transaction value lacked a concrete basis and did not comply with Valuation Rules. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the evidence of similar goods imported at lower prices in Delhi and emphasized the need to ascertain the price of similar goods in the international market.
3. Despite specific directions from the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration of the case and the submission of relevant Bills of Entry, the lower authorities repeatedly ignored the evidences provided by the importer. The failure to adhere to directions led to the setting aside of the orders and the allowance of the appeal.
4. The lower authorities' refusal to consider the material presented by the importers, even after remand and clear directions, indicated a lack of willingness to objectively evaluate the case. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the order was based on the authorities' disregard for the evidences and directions provided.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner's decision to set aside the order due to the authorities' repeated ignorance of directions and failure to consider the evidences presented by the importer, leading to a flawed decision in law.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the appeal, valuation rules, repeated remands, disregard of evidences, and the ultimate dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
-
2003 (5) TMI 449
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard a case where the appellants had initially taken credit on electric motors used for duty-free supply but later reversed the credit. The demand of 8% on the value of exempted goods was set aside as the credit was reversed. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed for violating provisions. The appeal was allowed with modified orders.
-
2003 (5) TMI 448
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai considered an application for waiver of deposit of duty and penalty. The applicant claimed exemption for goods sold to Crompton Greaves Ltd. The Tribunal found that the goods did not bear the brand name of the company. A deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed appropriate, with a deadline for the applicant to comply. Failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal.
-
2003 (5) TMI 447
Issues:
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on chemicals used in manufacturing
- Denial of credit on Caustic Soda Flakes, Soda Ash, and Titanium Dioxide
- Imposition of penalty and personal penalty on the Director
- Appeal against penalty imposed on the Director
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 65,69,795/- on chemicals used in manufacturing printing/writing paper, duplex board, coated paper, etc. The Commissioner disallowed the credit on Caustic Soda Flakes, Soda Ash, and Titanium Dioxide, alleging that certain quantities were not used in the manufacturing process, leading to demands, interest, and penalties, including a personal penalty on the Director.
2. The appellant-company argued that the chemicals were indeed used in manufacturing, supported by valid duty-paying documents and proper accounting. They highlighted the increased consumption due to a new coating plant for Titanium Dioxide and excessive use of Caustic Soda and Soda Ash for de-inking and bleaching poor quality waste paper. The Tribunal accepted these arguments, overturning the Commissioner's findings and allowing the Cenvat credit for the disputed period.
3. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's conclusions lacked proper examination of the appellant's explanations and supporting evidence. The appellant's justifications regarding increased consumption due to operational changes were deemed credible, leading to the reversal of the disallowance of credit on Titanium Dioxide, Soda Ash, and Caustic Soda for the period in question.
4. Regarding the penalty imposed on the Director, it was set aside as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the company's entitlement to Cenvat credit. Since the allegation of wrong availment/utilization of credit did not hold after the credit disallowance was overturned, the penalty on the Director was deemed unjustified and was consequently revoked.
5. In conclusion, both appeals were allowed, with the Tribunal overturning the disallowance of Cenvat credit on chemicals and the penalty imposed on the Director. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper examination of evidence and justifications in tax disputes to ensure fair treatment of taxpayers.
-
2003 (5) TMI 446
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing Modvat credit on EDP copy for Gear box and Valve. The Department's contention that EDP copy is not a valid document was rejected. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
