M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA' spicier- GovERNMENT PLEADER FoR srATE TAx TAX REVISION CASE NO: 114 OF 2008 Tax Revision Case Under Section 22 (1) ( See Rule 40 ) to revise the order dated26-03-2003inT,A.No.554of2006onthefileoftheCclurtoftheSalesTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) , Abids Division, Hyderabad dated '15-06-2006 in R R No' 27I04-05/APGSTpreferredagainsttheorderoftheCommercialTaxOfficer' BasheerbaghCircle,Hyderabaddated2}.os.2oo2inASSeSSmentNo'3312/00-0,1/ APGST Between: M/s. Modi Xerox Ltd., presenfly known as Xerox lndia Ltd., Hyderabad AND State of Andhra pradesh ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: SRt BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counset for the Respond".ltillt SWAROOP OOR|LLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENiPT-EEOCN FOR STATE TAX TAX REVISloN CASE N O: 11 60F 2008 Tax Revision Case rev se the order dated r. ;ffi;::';:i:,?r:Til:::il. i ::n: :::l :; the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad preferred agarnst the order of the Deputy commissioner (cr) , Abids Division, Hyderabad dated 20-06-2006 in R.R. No 28l04-05/cST preferred against the order of the commerciar rax officer, Circre, Hyderabad dated 06_06_2002 in Assessment No. 3312/00_01/ ::.J**"nn Between: M/s Xerox Modi Corp_ Ltd., presenfly known as Xerox lndia Ltd.,Hyderabad ANO State of Andhra pradesh ...PETITIONER ..,RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: SRI BHASKAR REDDy VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Responae.{a-S!l SWAROOP OOR|LLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEIDER FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following Common Order: .: ./-.; .,: ) ' .a.r/ THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE P'SAM KOSHY AND THE rroN'BLE sRI JusTlcil'oens'xc RAo NANDTKoNDA It4 AND 116 0F 2008 oNcASES NOs.115 113 REVISI TAX coMMON ORDER: bter Hol1'btc sj'l'hLst'ce N6Lrs1llg R'ao llo,.d'ko,rdo) This batch of Tax Revision Cases are frled by '-he petitioner challenging the common order' dated 26 'O3 '2008 ' in T'A'Nos'553' 552, 554 and 555 2006 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short' the STAT')'

2. The petitioner - M/ s' Modi Xerox Limited (presently known as 'Xerox India Limited, HYderabad) is a ComPanY incorporated under the provlsrons of the ComPanies Act, 1956' The case of the petitioner is that Bntry 12 is a specihc trntry for Photocopiers and entry 38 is general in nature:' In fact' the Taibunal ignored that Entry 12 u'hich was introduced in the year 19 58 u,as not meant for including photocopiers as it is a new invention in Eiectronic revolution' However' the TI'ibunal rejected thecaseofthepetitioneronthegroundthatEntry12to Schedule-I being a specihc Entry, Entry 38 of Scheduie I is in the nature of general entry has no application' It is the further case of the petitioner that Entry 12 to Schedule I refers to 'Dupliezitilrg 2 PS(J&NNAJ rRa-115 2ooa&aaTcH 'Cyclostyle Machines' which in those days were calied as Machines., it is stated that the legislature could not have lntended by any stretch of imagination to include Xerox Machines, under trntry 12 of the Andhra pradesh General SaJes Tax Act, 1957 (for short, .the ApcST Act, lgSZ). It is further stated that there is lot of difference tretween Duplicating Machine and Photocopier. Since Entry 38 of Schedule_l includes varl0us Electronic goods ald parts thereof, and photocopiers can be classilied only under entry 3g and Entry 12 therefore has no application. Alternatively, it is stated that .photocopiers, could, at best, be classified under Entry 3g-D of Schedure-I. It is not in dispute that a photocopier, is qualifies al Electronic equipment. It rvas further contended that the Tribunal has misconstrued and misdirected itself in concluding that after 3l.12.lggg, the photocopiers ceased to fall under the category of Electronic goods, entitled for concessional rates ignoring the fact that Entry 12 of Schedule-l was very much in existence even before 3l.I2.1ggg.

3. Therefore, Commercial Tax Officer by relying on the Merno issued by the Government uid,e Memo No.g45g5/CT/II ../,.' PSK,J&NNR,] rRa 11s 2ooa&BATCH (2)lgg, dated 12.07 '2000 rejected the contention of the petitioner to treat the Xerox Machines as'Electronic goods'and collected tax 19'05' 1995 at concessional rates rn terms of G'O'Ms'No '252 'dated' and G.O.Ms.No.653 dated 3l'O7 'lgg7 ' provisional Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Authority' before the APPellate DePutY the Petitioner Preferred aPPeals Division and also hled Commissioner, Secunderabad W.P.No.15O52 of 2001 before this Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid Memo, dated 12.07.2OOO' Aggrieved by the

4. This Court, by al order' dated 24'O7 '2O01 disposed of thesaidwritPetitionobservingthattheadjudicatingauthorities under the APGST Act, 1957 should decide the questions raised by the petitioner therein on the basis of evidence and lega1 contentions that may be placed before them independently dehors the opinion expressed by the Government in the impugned Memos, dated 12.O7.2000 and 30.05'200 1' It is the further case of the petitioner that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has issued Circular, dated, 3 1.08'2OO 1 direcling the Revisiona'l Authorities to verify rn'hether a particular commodily can be 4 PSI(J&NNAJ TRC 115 2ooa&BArcH classified as 'Electronic Goods' in the iight of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of BpL Ltd v. State of A.p.l

5. It is further case of the petitioner that the Appellate authority having considered all the materiai placed before it including the certificates obtained from experts in support of its contentions that the Xerox Machines are .Electronic Goods, uide its order, dated 26.09.200I has set aside the provisional assessment order passed by the commercial rax officer and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority with a direction to pass orders afresh after veri$uing the technical data/principles of operation relating to the products in question and grant concessional rate in terms of G.O.Ms.No,202, Revenue. dated 28.03.1998 and inter-State sales in terms of G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 10.03.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.g3, Revenue, dated 14.02.2000, even without production of declaration of Form-C upto 31.12.1999. pursuant to the orders passed by the Appeliate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, dated 26.09.2OOl, the Commercial Tax Ofhcer, Basheerbagh Circle, has passed the lrnal assessment orders through proceedings, dated 19.06.2002 '32 Apsrl- 1 : : r -;"? t'- . > .r"4' ',1"./ 5 RC 115-2008&BATCH for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2OOO-200 1 1eq'ing concessional rate of tax on the turnover of Fax Machines' Xerox Machines, Stabilizers a-nd its spares' 6 It is the further case of petitioner that while the matter stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Diviston, Hyderabad, has proposed revision of the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Offrcer' dated 19'O6' 2OO2 fot the aforesaid assessment -vears and issued show-cause notice' dated og -Og.2OO4 arrd' 24'09 '2OO4 respectively' The Revisional Authority proposed. to treat the Xerox machines and its spares as goods falling under Entry 12 of First Schedule to APGST Act taxable @l6ok refetring the Memo, dated 13'O7'2000' Thereafter' the Deputy Commissioner (CT) has passed order confrrming the lery through his proceedings, dated 20'03'2006 for the assessment year 1999-2000 and on 15'06 2006 for the Assessment year 2000- 2o0lunderAPGSTACtrejectingthecontentionsraisedbythe petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that basing on the certificates issued by the experts that the goods in question are 'Electronic Goods', the petitioner approached the learned Tribtinal' i 6 P5(,l&NNRI TRC-11s-2008&8ATCH The Tribunal after elaborate arguments has parfly allowed some of the appeals and partly dismissed some of the appeals frled by the petitioner declaring that the photo copiers along with their spares are to be classihed under Entry 12 to Schedule 1 of ApGST Act with effect from 01.O1.2000. 7, According to the petitioner, the Tribunal went wrong in observing that Entry 12 is a specific entry for photo copier though photo copiers were not in existence during the year 1958 vvhen Entry 12 was introduced in the Statue. It is also submitted that the Tribunal also went wrong in observing that Entry 3g does not cover photo copiers as the language of entry 3g is not exhaustive but is an incrusive entry. There is a lot of difference between Duplicating Machine and photo copier. The Tribunar railed to appreciate that the adoption of the list prepared by the Electronic commission of India by Memo, dated o1.09.19g9 is for convenience. It is further case of the petitioner that the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal in case of State of Maharastra v. Bradma of India Limitedz has no application to the present facts ' r+o stc ea3: tz'.- --. @.@' .' ": :':r'.i- ,/ ' ,'r:r:f' 7 P5K,I&NNR,J TBC-115-2008&BATaH of the case. Aggrieved by the order passed by the'Iribunal' the present Tax Revision Cases were filed by the petitioner'

8. Heard learned Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemi Reddy' learned colrnsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr' Swaroop Oorilia' IeAined Special Government Pleader for the State Tax' appearing for the resPondent g. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is dealing q'ith the business of manufactllre ald sale of electronic goods, such as Photo Copiers, (Xerox Machines)' Printers, Fax Machines Stabilizers' its spare parts and accessories. He further submitted that though the Xerox Machines are 'Electronic goods" the Commercial Tax Officer' Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad' ievied tax @ 16ok treating that the Xerox Machines and its spare parts falling under category of 'Duplicating machines' and directed the petitioner to pay tax under Entry 12 of I Schedule to APGST Act' 1957' He further submitted-that against the order passed by the Commercial Tax Ofhcer, the petitioner preferred appeals vide T'A'Nos' 1615' 1616' 1617 of 2OO1 before the STAT, wherein the STAT observed that 8 P5(,]&NNR,] TAC r1l-2ooa&aAlcH upto 31.12.1999, the petitioner,s goods are to be treated as 'Electronic Goods, and accordingly, the appeals were allowed declaring that the photocopiers along with their spares are to be classified under Entry 12 to I Schedule of ApGST Act, 1957 q.ith effect from 01.01.2000. Insofar as T.A.Nos.554 and 555 of 2006 €rre concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the STAT went wrong in observing that Entry 3g does not cover photocopier ald he also contended that Entry 3g of I schedule includes various electronic goods and parts thereof. The photocopiers can be classified only under Entry 38 that Entry 12 has no application ald that the Xerox copying Machines cannot be equated with that of duplicating machine. He further argued that all the goods which function electronically are taxable only as Electronic goods under Entry 2g, irrespective of the fact that they are classifred under different entries in the schedule. In support his contentions, he placed relialce on the folloq.ing judgment: l {' 9 PSK,J&NNRJ TRC 115 2003&BATCH

10. In State of Capacitors, Balanagar, A.P And Another v' M/s'ConcaP Hyderabad3, wherein the Hontrle Supreme Court held as follows "...19. Oncc again, thc issue came up for consideration before the sarne Court in India Extruston v Commission of Commercial 'laxes' A P- Hyderabad, \'2OOl) 124 STC 474 In India Extrusion' the Court was consideringtheitemofCableJoiningKitS'RelyingonG'o,Ms.\os.52oand 521 and taking recourse to the list of electronic goods crcpared try Electroni.c Commission, the Hrgh Court held that it could be said to be electronic goods and was subject to lem'at the concesstonal rate of tax' The Revenue accepted the judgment and had not challenged and the said decision '

21. To us, the High Court rvas alsct right in indicating that rvhen the item has been specihcally included in the list prepared bv Electronic Commission, the Tribunal could not have applied functionat test' operating principle or user test A limited inquiry rvhich l\'as required to be made by theTribunalu.aswhethertheitemhadbeenincludedinthelistprepared by the Electronic Commission lf any item is included in the said list' it has to be treated as such and tax has to be levied on that basis But if the itemiSnotrncludedinthelist,itisoperrtotheTribunalrlconsiderits placement on the basis of functional test as to $'hether such item could be said to be electronic goods The item Capacitors has beea expressly included in the tist prepared by the Electronic Commrssion and hence it ivasnotopentotheTribunaltoapplyoperatingprincipleotusertestand the High Court was w holly justified in interfering $'ith thc order passcd by the Tribunal ...." 3 Appeal (Civil) No. !+332 of 2007, dated l2-1O.2007 10 PS(,]&NAIRJ TRa-115_2008&BAICH

11. In Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P v. S/S. the Hon'ble Supreme Court Parikh GramodyogSansthana, held thus: .13. ELECTRICAL GOODS: The taw Lexicon Uustice T.p.Mukherjee 4n Ed,I9a9 pg.SZ4) defines Electrical Goods as .such articles the use of which cannot be had except with the application Lf electrical eners/., It must be kept in mind that an electronic device can be an electrical device but an electrrcal device cannot be an electronic der.ice. ELECTRONIC GOODS: 14. Sri M.p.Agarwal in his book Interpretation of Words, phrases & Commodities under Sales Tax l,aws has stated, ,the fact that the electronic goods cannot be used w.ithout the aid of electricity is not the only criterion to determine whether those goods can be treated as electrical goods. The really important criterion is whether those goods are regarded as electrical goods in common parlance_ It might consist of electronic instruments, apparatus, equipment operating on erectronic princi all tvpes of electronic components, parts and mate.ials_, 12. In Replica Agencies systems, ples ald v State of Andhra Praddeshs, the Honble Supreme Court held thus: "15 As observed earlier, we are in agreement uith the frnding of the Tribunal that the Xerox machine is nothing but a duplicating machine, where it is being used for obtairring copies of the original. There is no ambiguity and th Xerox machine rvould be considered as a duplicating machineqnly, falring under entry 12 of the First schedule_ Even assuming that the sait would fall under entry g3 also treating it as a machine, still o Civil Appeal No.651 ot 2005, dated I t-08.2010 '2001 sCC Ontine Ap 86S .-- M., ,1,,, $/ '.', :.,.'.a .{ . ..? 1,L P5K,I&NNR,J TRa 115 2003&BATCH entry 12 being a special entry' it prevails ov er the general entr'/' i e ' entry 83. Therefore, in anv vierv of the matter' we do not frnd that -iere rs any merit in the contention advanced by the counsel for the dealer'

13. In State of State of Andhra Pradesh v' Apex Agencies6, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that electronic calculators are taxable under entry No.38 (v) and accordingiy, conlrrmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the tax revisiou case {iled by the State.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that all the goods which function the principle of electronics are taxable only as 'Electronic Goods' under Entry 38 irrespective of the fact that they are classihed under different entries in the I Schedule and relied' upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cor-rrt in B.P.L Ltd' v' State of A'P7 (supra)' r'r'herein it is stated that "the operations which are automatically controlled in the working of the machines are that of wash cycle' rinse cycle ald has been certihed by the Indian Institute of spin /dry. It Technologz in the present case that the Automatic Washing u rssa 1t1 nlo zo 7 Appeal (Civil) No.444 44s of 2001, dated 09 01 2001 72 PSKJ&NNRJ rRc 115_2008&BATCH Machine of the appeilants therein has the facility of water level controlled delay programme. It has various prograrnmes which are controlled through microprocessor chips, in other words, what the said notification requires is that an item can be regarded as an electronic goods only if the functions which are required to be performed by that equipment or appliance are performed or controlled electronically by micro_processor. Admittedly, in the present case, the entire functioning of the washing machine is automatic. Data is fed into the machine and thereupon it is the micro processor which control and direct the carrying out of the various functions of the machine which results in the clothes being washed /in the desired manner.,

15. per contro, the learned standing counsel for the respondent submitted that it is after perusing the entire material placed on record, the learned Tribunal had passed a reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Learned counsel further contended that as there is no specifrc entry to cover the Xerox machine, in the ,Electronic same has to be treated as ,Duplicating Goods, the machine, as Xerox ffi-#i+"*r d .rl:.:' 13 PS(,]&NNR,] TRC,115,2008&BATCH machines do nothing else but duplicating the matter placed in it for extra coPles

16. Considering the rival contentions of both sides the only point that arises for consideration in these Tax Revision Cases is: whether the Tribunal was justified in classifying the Photocopiers along with their spare parts under Entry 12 of the I Schedule to the APGST Act' 1957 and Fax Machines and Voltage Stabilizers along with their spare parts classified under Entry 38 of the I Schedule to APGST Act, 1957 from O1.O1'2OOO and taxable tax (ql6o/"? LT.Forthesakeofconvenience,therelevantEntriesof Schedule 12 ard Entry 38 .A' and 38 'D' of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 are extracted below s1. No. 3a-A DescriPtion of Goo ds Point of LevY Rate of Tax personal, m1n1, Computers, laptops of analog and mainframes, dicital varictics including AutomaLic Teiler Machines, their hardware ald oeriohcrals tike modem, keY board' monitor, mouse, CPU. floPPies of all sizes, catridge taPe drives CD ROM drives, DAT drives, hard disks printers o dot matrix, inkjet and laser, line line-matrix, Scanners, muitimedia kits, plotters, Computer consumables, including DAT tiPs, rinter ribbons, printer catridges and p tapes and computer catridge errts and kits, and their do- 8 Paise in Rupee t 38-D 14 PSXJAI!NR,] IRr_1r5_2O03&sarcH ACCESS orres liA other e ctro Cnt orh SE S eCI e p Se h re ood S orhCI ht an At th this State e point of sale in Paise 8 Rupee rn the State [2OO2I] t2t

18. Further in the judgment of Cannon Ind of U,P.s, at paragraph No.23 it is held that " the decision of the Supreme Court Andhra pradesh ia Pvt. Ltd. V. in our opinion rn BPC Ltd. V. State of STC 4S0 squarely covers the present case. The pedtioner,s fully automated photocopier machines also run on electron principles and its functions are controlled exclusively and directly by microprocessor and microchips, hence it has been classifred as electronic and not as a duplicating machine. Further it is also held that the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner,s photocopiers as electronic goods under the Central Sales Tax Act ald U.p. Trade Tax Act and assess them accordingly.

19. Considering the dictum and catena of judgrnents relied upon by the petitioner especially the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in BpL's case, which squarely applies to the present set of facts as the question involved in the present Tax zoog tgr stct6o , dated 02.72.2002 t -i 15 PSK,]&NNRJ 1RC,115 2oo8&SATCH Revision Cases is also rn respect of whether tire PhotocoPY machine wotrld come within Entry 12 of Scheduie 1 or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act' 1957 or to be classihed under Entry 38 of Schedule I to it would APGST P'ct' 1957 ' 2C. Since the function of the said PhotocoPY machine is basing on the electronic microprocessor being "vorked microchiPs, this Bench has no hesitation to hold that the photocopy machine would very well come within the meaning of electronic goods ald the same would be taxable under Entry 38' Though the functioning of the same is more or less is equal to that of a duplicating machine, the difference betrveen duplicating machine and the electronic photocopy machine can be made out by the s'orking methodolory of the said machine ald bv preceding paragraphs

21. The contention of the petitioner in the aJhd avit at paragraph No.9 it is stated as under: "The Trlbunal also went wrong in obsen'ing that enlry 38 does not .or". pftoto Copiers as the language of entry 38 is exhaustive but is ,r, irr.l.r"i..e e.riry- The Tribu;d a-lso went wrong in observlng that through Entry 38-D is a general entry with reference to Electronic items, it applies only to small Electronic goods of lesser value which can bc used once and whose repair is not consiclererl viable if thev I L6 P5KJ&NNAJ TAC_115 2008&BATCH "., stop functioning. The observation of the Tribunal js not supporled by aly maLcrial -1-T^._^.?:..yr*"'iJ'..,ii,i! bur a prcsumprion. Admittedly photo Copiers would function o.,ty- o., the principles of trlectronics and is_i rl.* i""..riio.r-; ;;, hled of Electronics. Though the photo Copiers ar" "r"J io.',riirlg multiple prints of a master copy, it cannot be equated to a Oufiicating Machine. In dupiicating Machine reduction ;r;;;.;;;r.or.rhe print of the master copy is not possible whereas in the.nodem Xerox machines l1?^A1:1"": copy print ... t" ."p..a""Ja by contrasting or enrargement. F\rther in the Duplicating machines I Cv.to"ivl. copies of any document cannot be p.oari".a.--it. ..;;;,t;;i; has to be first typed by cutring typed stencit onty " "4";;ii;;:"ch can be used for making copiei, whereas i"-x.."* machines we can used any document irrespective i," .#'u"i colour lor taking "f copies. Thus it shows that there is l"1 li'aiif.r"nce between - Duphcating Machine and_ photo C"pi". " ifr". statement showing functional differences of Duplicating'-1.f._." and photo Copiers are annexed in the material p"p"." fo-, .."dy ."f....r"".,, 22. The findings of the Tribuna,l are also difficult to accept, primarily because the Electronics Commission of India and authoritative body in the Country has classifred photocopy machines/photocopiers as electronic goods in its ofhcial schedule. As the Electronics Commission is a premium agencies in India which authentically takes responsible for determining which items fall within the scope of erectronic goods in India, its classification holds signilicant weight and cannot be lightly disregarded. ?3, On overall consideration of entire material placed and the judgments cited by the petitioner, this Bench is of the opinion that the said photocopy machine would come very well within the meaning of electronic goods and the same carinot be treated as a M rsr.' i 77 PSK,I&NNR,I TRC 115-2003&BATCll duplicating machine for the purpose of taxing Xerox machine has to be treated as electronic goods and would come under entry 38 of Schedule I. For the aforesaid reasons' the isstte' which u'as framed is alsv,'ered in favour of the petitioners artd against the respondents. Resultantly, the Tax Revision Cases a're liable to be allowed.

24. Accordingly, all the Tax Revision Cases are allolr'ed' There shal1 be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these cases shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY'/ sD/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \ \ ,l SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P SAM KOSHY One Fair Copy to tf," Hon'Oie-Sllustice t'tRRSING RAO NANDIKONDA (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) ' To 't - The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad. Abids Division' Hyderabad i. i'i" o.prtv Commissioner (cT) 3. The Commercial tax offlcei, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad 4. 11 LR CoPies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of law' Justice and 6. The Secretary r"r'ng";AOvocates Association' Library' High Court 7. One CC to SRl. eHASfan REDDY VEMIREDDY' Advocate [O-P-U-C] ^^ 8. one cc to sRl. sw;iiiiii; iionifr-n, spEclAL Govr' PLEADER FoR ComPanY Affairs, New Delhi Buildings HYderabad ' STATE TAX (OPUC)

9. Two CD CoPies kul 3lr Vk I'-it9.Li.r:'1{: ..*!*t-, ! HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 J L,.R COPY'fO t}E MARKI]L) ;i.r HE s14 r4r () 29TIJEM $( ,l * a,^.Sn416ritl( ,, -::>---_---, l)-,2 t' COMMO NOIIDER TAX REVISION cASE NOS : 115 113 114 and 1 16 0F 2008 ALLOWING 1'III] TAX RF]VISrcN CASES WITHOL]T COSTS ruqluk .\a q{,, -,.4V