TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarter July 2017 to September 2017 only on this ground, refund cannot be denied. It is settled law that discretion exercised by a statutory authority who is empowered to exercise such discretion cannot be interfered with lightly or routinely. The mere fact that the committee of Commissioners found the reasons assigned to be not convincing, without any basis it is not sufficient for filing a review as the reasons given in exercise of its statutory powers of exercising discretion. In the grounds of appeal there is no averment by the revenue that the reasons assigned suffer from any perversity or are premised on non-existent facts so as to warrant interference with the exercise of the discretion - In the present case it is not only the Deputy Commissioner who has extended the period by recording the reasons but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also endorsed the said reasoning. As per the ground of appeal of the revenue, the main contention is that the respondent have not complied with the contention of Para 3(III)(e) of the Notification No.12/2013-ST in as much as the refund claim in case of refund claimed under Table-II of Form A-4 of Notification, the refund claim was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing refund shall apply only in case where the payment is directly made by SEZ Unit for which Table-II is prescribed for claiming the refund in that condition (e) shall be applied in case of refund made in Table-II of Form A-4 accordingly, the condition of Para 3(III)(e) of notification is clearly not applicable in case of refund claim made by the respondent in Table-II of Form A-4 apended to the notification. In the present case, the main issue is that there is a delay in filing the refund claim which as per the department is in violation of Clause (e) of Para 3 (III). This being a procedural lapse cannot be the ground for denying the substantial benefit of the exemption notification which is granted by way of refund of service tax in the SEZ - it is settled that in case of violation of condition of the notification which is in the nature of procedural lapse, the substantial benefit of the exemption notification cannot be denied. Even though there is a delay the same was condoned by the lower authority - there are no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No.12056 of 2019 - A/12621/2021 - Dated:- 17-12-2021 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (e) The lower authorities adopted an incorrect approach when dealing with the exemption notification and ignored the settled law which prescribes that condition in exemption notification ought to be directly construed consistent with the principles established by Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI Vs. DILIP KUMAR AND CO. Reported in 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC) The respondent also filed a Cross Objection bearing No.ST/CO/10766/2019. 02. Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (revenue) reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that as regard the compliance of Para 3(III)(e) of Notification No.12/2013-ST, it is clear that the refund of service tax shall only be allowed subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Clause (e) being a part of the list of mandatory conditions without which the refund shall not be granted. As per the said condition refund shall be filed within one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of Service Tax made by the SEZ Unit or Developer to the registered service provider or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim whether it is for the refund covered in Table-I or Table-II, the same limitation period of one year applies to both the categories. Therefore, refund claim filed after one year of stipulated time provided under the notification is not admissible to the respondent. 2.3 He submits that ISD Invoice are as old as four years had been left out and later on included in the list of invoices of the present claim which are under dispute. As per the provision relating to input service distribution, the credit attributable to service used by more than one unit but not to all units shall be distributed on pro-rata basis of the turn over during the relevant period of such units to the total turnover of all units on which credit is attributable and which are apparently in the current year. However, in this case it is seen that the respondent who has its own ISD has distributed the credit after four years which do not appear to be credible. An entity which has to claim refund under Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 1.7.13 have to directly oblige with the conditions specified therein under clause (e) being one of the important condition. He submits that there is no proof or evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distribution of the common credit at ISD Level therefore, the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner condoning the delay are not reasonable and correct. He submits that as regard the submission of the respondent that provision regarding filing of claim by SEZ Unit in Para 3 (III)(e) are worded liberally is not correct as the said condition is mandatory. As regard the respondent s reliance on this Tribunal Final Order No.A/10493-10494/2019-WZB/AHD dated 13.3.19 which was upheld by the Hon ble High Court vide Order dated 12.12.19 in their own case involving the same issue of previous period. He submits that in the instant case the condonation of Delay relates to claim period of more than four years also which is without any rationale justification as the number of invoices involved in the refund claim is more than 33,000 in number. He submits that it is beyond understanding how such a huge number of invoices were left out over a period of four years. The only reason furnished by the claimant to the Deputy Commissioner is that due to tremendous volume of documentation they could not have filed the refund claim within one year and this explanation has been agreeably accepted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts is different from the normal framework in that an SEZ Unit under the RBI guidelines is entitle to make payments to the registered service provider in foreign currency facility which does not exist for units in the DTA. (b) Where services are received by the SEZ not directly from the registered service provider but through the head office located in the DTA. Services provided by the Registered Service Providers in such situation common services meant for the DTA Units as well as for the SEZ Units. The entitlement of the SEZ unit to claim refund or avail cenvat credit flows from the ISD Invoice and not on the strength of the mother invoice issued by the Registered Service Provider to the DTA Units. In these situations, no payment is made directly by the SEZ Units to the Registered Service Provider. 3.1 It is the submission of the respondent that Table-I of the Notification covers a situation where services are procured and paid directly by an SEZ Unit as such services are for exclusive use in the SEZ. Table-II on the other hand covers services which are common to DTA and SEZ Operations which are procured and paid for by the Head Office in the DTA. 3.2 He submits that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to be interpreted harmoniously with the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules and the SEZ Rules, all of them have relevance in working of the notification. It is necessary to take note of the following two relevant provisions in Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules which deals with distribution of common input services or Rule 19(7) of SEZ Rules which will need to be interpreted and construed harmoniously with the provision of the notification: (a) Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules deals with distribution of common input services by an ISD does not lay down any outer limit for distribution of credit. Therefore, revenue s attempt to place time limit in clause (e) with respect to the refund arising out of ISD Invoices as effective of indirectly imposing time limit under Rule 7 where no such time limit exists in the said rule. (b) Rule 19(7) of the SEZ Rules expressly provides that an SEZ Unit and the DTA Operations of the company have two distinct identities with separate books of accounts therefore, it would be totally inappropriate and impermissible to substitute the words SEZ Units in clause (e) with the words Claimants . 3.6 He further submits that even if Rule 19(7) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, Government had no legal right to levy any service tax where such services were being consumed by the SEZ Unit therefore, provision in the said notification have to be construed keeping in mind the benevolent and beneficial object and purport the statute since the government did not have right in the first instance to levy and collect service tax. He placed reliance on the judgment in GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Vs. MOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATION CONVENT (MANU/SC/127/2021) CCE VS. FAVOURITE INDUSTRIES (MANU/SC/270/2012). 3.9 As regard the grounds of appeal that only one refund claim per quarter being permissible under clause (f) of Para 3(III). He submits that this issue is no longer res-integra and has already been decided in favour of the respondent in the following judgments:- SRF LIMITED Vs. CCE ST-2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 347 (Tri.-Del.) WESTERN CANS P. LTD. Vs. C.C.Ex.MUMBAI-1- 2011 (270) E.L.T. 101 CCE Vs. CHAMUNDI TEXTILES (SILK MILLS) LTD.- 2011 (270) ELT 531 (Tri.-Bang.) 3.10 He submits that the revenue s contention that period for which the refund has already been filed, refund in respect of invoices for that earlier period cannot be filed as it will amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g. This tribunal in the appellant s own case vide its Final Order No. A/10493-10494/2019-WZB/AHD dated 13.3.2019 while dealing with the earlier case where no reasons had been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, it was held that as an appellate forum it was entitle to exercise the powers vested in the Deputy Commissioner and condoned the delay if it was satisfied with the reasons for such delay. The above approach of the Hon ble Tribunal was challenged by the revenue before Hon ble Gujarat High Court which challenge was dismissed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court by upholding not only the power of condoning delay but also accepting the reasons assigned in the Tribunal Order for condoning the delay. 3.13 As regard the contention of the revenue that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to carry out the verification exercise relating to the distribution of credit between DTA Unit and the SEZ is concerned, it is submitted that the requirement in the said clause (a) is that the distribution of the credit has to be made in the manner specified in Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent had submitted a Chartered Accountant Certificate in accordance with the requirement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of hearing that along with refund claims, the respondent had filed statements in Exhibit-B B1 and certified copies of documents which were Exhibits-C C1. It was submitted that the certified copies of documents submitted as Exhibit C C1 were in total of 1255 volumes, each volume containing hundreds of documents. The number of documents submitted along with refund claim were in excess in Lakh and the number of invoice covered by Table-II for this particular claim were more than 33,400 and for each of these invoices, the respondent had submitted ISD Invoice, Mother invoice, Invoice Verification (IV) Documents, Bank Payment Vouchers. He submits that as directed by the hon ble Bench, the respondents have submitted the copies of the following documents:- a) First page of the statement showing invoice-wise details of taxable services received from various Service Providers and service tax paid to them (Enclosed as Exhibit B B1 to Refund Application dated 30.10.2017 bearing F.No.: RIL/SEZ-Unit/STX/Refund-Jam-03/2017-18/172) It may be noted that Exhibit B relates to Table-I and Exhibit B1 relates to Table-II. b) Sample on one set each, of Certified Copies of documents suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Tax was made by the developer or the SEZ unit to the registered service provider. The Clause (f) In Paragraph III also provides that the SEZ unit or the developer shall submit only one refund application under the notification for every quarter. It is an admitted fact on record that within one year from the date of actual payment of Service Tax to the service provider, the appellant had filed the refund application. However, the refund application for ₹ 4,64,114/-, has not been considered by the authorities below on the ground that Service Tax paid during the particular quarter, has not been claimed for that quarter. On a conjoint reading of Clauses (e) and (f) contained in the Notification, it transpires that the statutory requirement of time limit for filing the refund application is contained in Clause (e), which has to be strictly adhered to by the assessee for the purpose of claiming refund. The condition in Clause (f) is to facilitate the Department to scrutinize or to process the refund application. Thus, the condition for filing the claim on quarterly basis has been provided therein. 5. Since Clause (f) is procedural in nature and the appellant in this case has co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y exports and therefore the exporter does not file any claim. However, he receives inputs/input services during this period. To illustrate, an exporter may avail of ₹ 1 crore as input credit in the April-June quarter. However, no exports may be made in this quarter, so no refund is claimed. The input credit is thus carried over to the July-September quarter, when exports of ₹ 50 lakh and domestic clearances of ₹ 25 lakh are made. The exporter should be permitted a refund of ₹ 66 lakh (as his export turnover is 66% of the total turnover in the quarter) from the Cenvat credit of ₹ 1 crore availed in April-June quarter. The illustration prescribed under para 5 of the Appendix to the notification should be viewed in this light. However, in case of service providers exporting 100% of their services, such disputes should not arise and refund of Cenvat credit, irrespective of when he has taken the credit, should be granted if otherwise in order. Such exporters may be asked to file a declaration to the effect that they are exporting 100% of their services, and, only if it is noticed subsequently that the exporter had provided services domestically, the proport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r informal communication from the ISD Office about the extent of Cenvat credit attributable to the SEZ Unit. Therefore, in view of the above reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner for extending the time limit for filing refund claim are reasonable and correct. 4.3 It is settled law that discretion exercised by a statutory authority who is empowered to exercise such discretion cannot be interfered with lightly or routinely. The mere fact that the committee of Commissioners found the reasons assigned to be not convincing, without any basis it is not sufficient for filing a review as the reasons given in exercise of its statutory powers of exercising discretion. In the grounds of appeal there is no averment by the revenue that the reasons assigned suffer from any perversity or are premised on non-existent facts so as to warrant interference with the exercise of the discretion. We find that even if the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner for extending the time are not cogent, nothing prevents for a higher forum to substitute that reasoning with its own reasoning. In the present case it is not only the Deputy Commissioner who has extended the period by recording the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended by the Revenue, inasmuch as, even if the adjudicating authority had not exercised the jurisdiction vested with it, we can do so and we exercise the said discretion and condone the delay in filing the claim for refund, as prescribed in clause (e) of Para 3(III) of Notification No.12/2013 . In our view any other interpretation would do violence to the objective with which the entire exemption mechanism by way of refund has been put in place Against the above Tribunal Order, the revenue had filed an appeal before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court which was dismissed by upholding not only the power of Tribunal to condone the delay (when the Deputy Commissioner had not given reasons) but also accepting the reason assigned in the Tribunal s Order for condoning the delay. The relevant extract of the Hon ble High Court s Order dated 12.12.2019 is reproduced below: 10.2 In the light of the principles enunciated in the above decisions, the powers of the appellate authority being an extension of the powers of the assessing authority, any order that could be passed by the assessing authority can be passed by the appellate authority. Under the circumstances, no infirmity can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontesting the correctness of the distribution made by ISD registrant. It is also a fact that the appeal of the revenue also does not cite any such instance, we find that the similar ground was raised by the revenue in the respondent s own case for the previous period wherein, similar ground was raised by the revenue doubting the correctness of distribution of Cenvat Credit without citing any specific instance or error in any particular invoice but this tribunal has rejected the said ground of the revenue. The relevant order dated 13.3.2019 is reproduced below: 10. Insofar as contravention of clause (a) of Para 3(III) of Notification No. 12/2013 is concerned the Revenue has sought remitting the matter back for verification of the correctness of the distribution of credit made to the SEZ unit through ISD invoices. In other words the Revenue wants the verification to be undertaken as to whether the distribution was in accordance with the Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On the other hand the respondent has contended that along with the claim for refund all the necessary data required for the purpose of verification had been furnished. In fact the certification of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne year from the date of actual payment of service tax made by the respondent to the registered service provider. The said notification is reproduced below:- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with sub-section 3 of section 95 of Finance (No.2), Act, 2004 (23 of 2004) and sub-section 3 of section 140 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 40/2012-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 482 (E), dated the 20th June, 2012, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the services on which service tax is leviable under section 66B of the said Act, received by a unit located in a Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as SEZ Unit) or Developer of SEZ ( hereinafter referred to as the Develope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for authorised operation or were found not to have been used exclusively for authorised operation, it shall pay to the government an amount that is claimed by way of exemption from service tax and cesses along with interest as applicable on delayed payment of service tax under the provisions of the said Act read with the rules made thereunder. (III) The refund of service tax on (i) the specified services that are not exclusively used for authorised operation, or (ii) the specified services on which ab-initio exemption is admissible but not claimed, shall be allowed subject to the following procedure and conditions, namely:- (a) the service tax paid on the specified services that are common to the authorised operation in an SEZ and the operation in domestic tariff area [DTA unit(s)] shall be distributed amongst the SEZ Unit or the Developer and the DTA unit (s) in the manner as prescribed in rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. For the purpose of distribution, the turnover of the SEZ Unit or the Developer shall be taken as the turnover of authorised operation during the relevant period. (b) the SEZ Unit or the Developer shall be entitled to refund of the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified services is erroneously refunded for any reason whatsoever, such service tax refunded shall be recoverable under the provisions of the said Act and the rules made there under, as if it is recovery of service tax erroneously refunded; 5. Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, SEZ Unit or the Developer shall have the option not to avail of this exemption and instead take CENVAT credit on the specified services in accordance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 6. Words and expressions used in this notification and defined in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005) or the rules made thereunder, or the said Act, or the rules made there under shall apply, so far as may be, in relation to refund of service tax under this notification as they apply in relation to a SEZ. 7. This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Gazette of India FORM A-4 [Refer condition at S. No. 3(III)(c)] Application for claiming refund of service tax paid on specified services used for authorised operations in SEZ under notification No. 12/2013-Service Tax dated 1st July, 2013 To The Assistant/Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ____________]. TABLE-II S. No. Description of taxable service Name and address of service provider STC No. of service provider Invoice* No. Date Value of service Service tax + cess Amt. Amount distributed to the SEZ Unit/Developer out of the amount mentioned at column No. (8) (Claimed as refund) Document* under which amount mentioned at column (9) was distributed to the SEZ Unit/Developer No. Date (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly amount distributed to the SEZ Unit/Developer needs to be claimed as refund and detail of documents such as ISD Number and date has to be mentioned. As per the said format, the refund claim under table-II can only be filed when the SEZ Unit receives the ISD Invoices. In the present case there is no dispute that the respondent has filed the refund claim within one year from the date of ISD Invoices. It is clear that without the ISD Invoices, refund cannot be filed. As per the format of Table-II in such case it is impossible to file a refund claim from the date of actual payment of service tax to the service provider therefore, the condition prescribed under clause (e) of Para 3 (III) is applicable only in respect of Table-I of Form A-4. The conditions prescribed under clause (a) to (h) are for the refund filed under Table-I II therefore, obviously all such conditions shall not be applicable for refund made under Table-I II both. Some conditions shall apply to Table-I and some shall apply to Table-II. For example, clause (a) shall be applicable only in respect of common service used for SEZ as well as operations in DTA where the refund has to be claimed under Table-II of Form A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the condition of clause (e) of Para (III) of the notification shall not apply for the reason that the said clause is applicable only in a case where the payment of service tax is directly made by the SEZ to the service provider when the services are exclusively used in the SEZ unit. Legislators intention is very clear that one year period is applicable only in case of payment directly made by SEZ Unit and not in a case where the Head Office of the SEZ unit is making the payment. 4.10 The law clearly made distinction between the SEZ Unit and the DTA Unit of the same company. In this regard Rule 19 (7) of SEZ Rules is reproduced below:- (7) If an enterprise is operating both as a Domestic Tariff Area unit as well as a Special Economic Zone Unit, it shall have two distinct identities with separate books of accounts, but it shall not be necessary for the Special Economic Zone unit to be a separate legal entity: [Provided that foreign companies can also set up manufacturing Units as their branch operations in the Special Economic Zones in accordance with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of branch or office or other place of business) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied invariably in cases where the violation of condition which is procedural. The ratio of the judgment can be applied considering the facts of each case and also the nature of condition which is violated. Therefore, in the facts of the present case ratio of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of DILIP KUMAR cannot be applied. Even if it is assumed that clause (e) of Para 3 (III) of Notification is applicable and there is a delay in filing the refund, the lapse is only of procedural. For that matter substantial benefit of refund cannot be denied and a liberal approach for condonation of delay needs to be taken as held by the Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG Vs. MST. KATIJI -1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) Wherein, the following order was passed:- 3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 (Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period) of the Indian Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... administered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grate status. The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression sufficient cause . So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;diligence' or 'inaction' can be attributed to an Appellant only when something required to be done by him, is not done. When nothing is required to be done, courts do not expect the Appellant to be diligent. Where an appeal is admitted by the High Court and is not expected to listed for final hearing for a few years, an Appellant is not expected to visit the court or his lawyer every few weeks to ascertain the position nor keep checking whether the contesting Respondent is alive. He merely awaits the call or information from his counsel about the listing of the appeal. Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963)-Section 5- Principles governing condonation of delay in filing petition to set aside abatement. Held: Thus it can safely be concluded that if the following three conditions exist, the courts will usually condone the delay, and set aside the abatement (even though the period of delay is considerable and a valuable right might have accrued to the opposite party--LRs of the deceased--On account of the abatement); (i) The Respondent had died during the period when the appeal had been pending without any hearing dates being fixed; (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MANU/SC/0703/1997 (1997) 6 SCC 564] is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export case stand overruled. 23. It may be noticed that the 5-Judge Bench judgment did not refer to the line of authority which made a distinction between exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which have a beneficial purpose. We cannot agree with Shri Gupta's contention that sub-silentio the line of judgments qua beneficial exemptions has been done away with by this 5-Judge Bench. It is well settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what may logically follow from it (see Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 as followed in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra MANU/SC/0047/1967 (1968) 2 SCR 154 at 162, 163) 24. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of the exemption contained in Section 3(1)(b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of these cases being the line of authority which deals with beneficial exemptions as opposed to exemptions generally in tax statutes. This being the case, a literal formalistic interpretation of the statute at hand is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
