Office Of The Officer, Special Economic ... vs V.Venkatachalam Resulotion ...

(Arising out of Order dated 17th October, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in I.A. No. 703 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 275/7/HDB/2018)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Office of the Specified Officer, Special Economic Zone, Warora, District: Chandrapur, Maharashtra ....Appellant

Versus

Mr. V. Venkatachalam Resolution Professional of Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited .....Respondent

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Gopal Jha and Mr. Gautam Singh, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Ms. Vandana Sehgal and Mr. Zain A. Khan and Mr. Anando Mukherjee, Advocates.

BANSI LAL BHAT, J.

A Resolution Plan submitted by 'Consortium of Sri City Private

Limited' and 'KCR Enterprise LLP' (Resolution Applicants) to resolve

Corporate Insolvency of 'M/s. Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited'

(Corporate Debtor) approved by the Committee of Creditors with 75.91%

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 2

voting shares and submitted by the Resolution Professional of the

Respondent- Corporate Debtor along with application under Section 31

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("I&B Code" for short)

before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal),

Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad has been approved in terms of order

dated 17th October, 2019. Same has been assailed by the Specified

Officer, Special Economic Zone, Warora (Appellant) through the medium

of instant appeal primarily on the ground that the exemption/

concession granted by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned

order is in direct conflict of the provision of Special Economic Zone Act,

2005 ("SEZ Act, 2005"/ Act for short) as well as the Special Economic

Zone Rules, 2006 ("SEZ Rules, 2006"/ Rules for short). It is contended

that the amount to be paid at the time of de-bonding/ exit from SEZ is

subject to the assessment to be made by the Development

Commissioner under Rule 74 of the 'SEZ Rules, 2016'. It is further

contended that such amount is not a crystallized debt but an amount to

be assessed by the development commissioner in exercise of its

jurisdiction under the 'SEZ Act, 2005' and 'SEZ Rules, 2016'. It is

submitted that such assessment is to be made at the time of exit and

cannot be classified as a crystallized debt. Learned counsel for the

Appellant submits that the impugned order is in conflict with the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "M/s. Embassy Property

Developments Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.' being Civil

Appeal No. 9170 of 2019 decided on 3rd December, 2019.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 3

2. A flash back of the factual matrix culminating in approval of the

Resolution Plan is required to be briefly noticed. 'India Opportunities III

Pte. Ltd. and Another' initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

of the Corporate Debtor by filing an application under Section 7 of the

'I&B Code' which came to be admitted on 9th November, 2018. Mr. V

Venkatachalam- Respondent herein came to be appointed as Interim

Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor who issued the Public

Announcement inviting claims from all stakeholders and constituted

the Committee of Creditors thereafter. He was subsequently confirmed

as Resolution Professional. He carried forward the Resolution Process.

Expression of Interest were invited which evoked response from four

persons. Claims of as many as 15 Financial Creditors with 14 of them

holding security interest, 6 Financial Creditors (related parties), 133

Operational Creditors and one other Creditor besides claims of

employees/ workmen were received, collated and admitted by the

Resolution Professional. The Resolution Plan filed by 'Consortium of Sri

City Private Limited' and 'KCR Enterprise LLP' (Resolution Applicants)

was approved by the Committee of Creditors with voting majority of

75.91% of the Committee of Creditors. In terms of the approved plan,

the Resolution Applicant proposed to infuse a total amount of Rs. 495

Crores as part of Resolution Plan being a combination of equity shares

CCDs as well as working capital. The working capital of Rs.325 Crores

was to be infused by Resolution Applicant to meet the immediate

requirement of Corporate Debtor's operations. The plan dealt with the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 4

interest of all stakeholders providing for upfront payment to secured

and unsecured Financial Creditors, payment to Operational and other

creditors and servicing of residual surviving debt, contingent claims and

resolution cost. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating

Authority as approved by the Committee of Creditors after recording its

satisfaction that the Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of

Creditors having 75.91% of voting shares meets the requirements of

Section 30(2) of the 'I&B Code'.

3. The challenge to the approved Resolution Plan in the instant

appeal filed by Special Economic Zone (Appellant) is limited to

concession incorporated in Clause 3 (j) & (r) of the impugned order

which deals with 'Relief and Concession in the Resolution Plan sought

by the Resolution Applicant'. A cursory look at the relevant provision

brings it to fore that an amount of Rs. 45 Crores was provided to be

paid to Custom Department for the de-notification of Special Economic

Zone ("SEZ"). The Resolution Applicant sought a direction for waiving off

any additional amount required to be paid by the Corporate Debtor in

the form of interest or penalty in connection with such de-notification.

It is manifestly clear that the Resolution Applicant did not seek to evade

liability in respect of payment of Rs.45 Crores to Custom Department

for de-notification of SEZ but only sought a direction for waiving off

additional amount required to be paid by the Corporate Debtor which

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 5

may be levied as an interest or penalty in connection with such de-

notification.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned

order dated 17th October, 2019 was passed at the back of Appellant who

was not a party to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority. It is

further submitted that no notice was issued by the Adjudicating

Authority prior to granting of concession which has caused prejudice to

Appellant to whom the order was communicated for the first time on

23rd December, 2019. It is further submitted that the amount to be paid

at the time of de-bonding/ exit from SEZ has to be assessed by the

Development Commissioner at the time of exit and such amount cannot

be regarded as a crystallized debt in as much as the same has to be

determined on assessment at the time of de-bonding/ exit from SEZ.

5. Rebutting the contentions of the Appellant, learned counsel for

the Respondent raised various pleas. Firstly, it is submitted that the

Appeal is barred by limitation. In this regard, it is pointed out that

though the Appellant claims to have acquired knowledge of the

impugned order on 23rd December, 2019, actually and factually

Appellant got knowledge of impugned order on 2nd December, 2019

when the letter and application for de-bonding by the Successful

Resolution Applicant along with the impugned order of the Adjudicating

Authority was received by the Appellant. Secondly, it is submitted that

the Appellant cannot question the powers of the Committee of Creditors

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 6

once it submitted to the jurisdiction of the Committee of Creditors by

making a claim with the Resolution Professional. Thirdly, it is argued

that as regards powers of the Committee of Creditors similar claims by

the Government Authorities have been dismissed by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Appellate Tribunal and law laid down in "Committee of

Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised

Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.- 2019 SCC OnLine SC

1478" has clearly established that the commercial wisdom of the

Committee of Creditors reigns supreme in the resolution of distressed

assets under the Code. Fourthly, it is submitted that the Resolution

Applicant did not arrive at the figure of Rs.45 Crores for de-bonding

unilaterally as the Resolution Plan clearly specified that the figure is an

estimate arrived at by internal assessment at the time of submission of

the Resolution Plan while the actual figure needs to be arrived at by the

Competent Authorities on the written down value of the fixed assets of

the Corporate Debtor on the date of application for de-bonding.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

written submissions filed by the Respondent. However, Appellant has

not chosen to file written submissions.

7. Before leaping forward to come to grips with the merits of the

case, it would be appropriate, at the outset, to deal with the issue of

limitation. Section 61 of the 'I&B Code' provides for appeal against an

order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Part-II of the 'I&B

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 7

Code' covering Sections 4 to 77 of the 'I&B Code'. An aggrieved person

may prefer an appeal to NCLAT within 30 days. This Appellate Tribunal

has been vested with powers to allow an appeal to be filed after the

expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not

filing the appeal within the prescribed time. However, such period shall

not exceed 15 days. This provision engrafted in Section 61 (1) & (2)

provides special Rules of limitation and the phraseology of Section 61

(1) in unambiguous terms provides that such right of appeal shall be

available to aggrieved party notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained under the Companies Act, 2013. This leaves no room for

doubt that the appeal provided for in this Section is not in any manner

limited, scuttled or curtailed by the provisions of the Companies Act,

2013 and this right of appeal, as a creation of a statute, is exercisable

in accordance with Special Rules of Limitation contained therein which

has an overriding effect on provision contained in the Companies Act,

2013 as also in the Limitation Act, 1963. It is by now well settled that

the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked for

regulating the period of limitation governing appeals preferred under

Section 61 of the 'I&B Code' which ordinarily provides a period of 30

days for preferring of an appeal by an aggrieved person qua an order

passed under Part-II of the 'I&B Code' which is extendable by 15 days at

the discretion of this Appellate Tribunal on sufficient cause being

assigned for non-filing of appeal within the statutory period of 30 days.

It is also manifestly clear that the outer limit of 45 days cannot be

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 8

transgressed to enable an Appellant to maintain an appeal under this

provision. If the appeal has been preferred beyond statutory period of

30 days and extended period of 15 days i.e. total 45 days, this Appellate

Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal.

8. The next question for consideration would be as to from which

date the period of limitation is to be reckoned. NCLT Rules enjoin upon

the NCLT/ Adjudicating Authority to provide free certified copy of the

order to the parties to resolution process before it. There is no difficulty

in computing the period of limitation in so far as the same relates to a

party to such resolution process. However, other aggrieved persons who

may not have been a party to the proceedings before the Adjudicating

Authority will not be entitled to a free certified copy of the impugned

order and in their case the period of limitation will have to be reckoned

from the date of knowledge of such order having been passed by the

Adjudicating Authority. In the instant case, Appellant claims that it was

not a party to the proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority and it

gained knowledge about the impugned order vide Respondent's letter

dated 20th December, 2019 received on 23rd December, 2019 together

with a copy of the impugned order. This is specifically pleaded in para

2. The appeal was admittedly filed on 4th February, 2020 i.e. after 42

days. If it be so, it would fall within the purview of extended timeline of

45 days within the ambit of Section 61 (2) proviso of the 'I&B Code'

subject to assigning of a sufficient cause but the controversy does not

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 9

end here. According to respondent, the impugned order was

communicated to Appellant by Respondent vide letter dated 29th

November, 2019 forming Annexure R1 to the Affidavit filed by the

Respondent. Same appears to have been replied on 10th December,

2019, the reply forming Annexure R2 to the Affidavit of the Respondent.

In the aforesaid reply, the Appellant has acknowledged receipt of

impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, the date of

knowledge of the impugned order would have to be reckoned from 29th

November, 2019 i.e. the day when the impugned order was

communicated by the Respondent to Appellant vide Annexure R-1 to

Respondent's Affidavit. Computed from 29th November, 2019, the appeal

has been preferred after 75 days. Viewed thus, it is abundantly clear

that the appeal has been preferred even 30 days beyond the extended

timelines of 45 days envisaged under Section 61(2) proviso of the 'I&B

Code'. It is, therefore, irrelevant as to whether the cause assigned for

non-filing of the appeal within statutory period of 30 days from the date

of knowledge was sufficient to warrant condonation of delay/ extension

for 15 days contemplated under law as the maximum outer limit. The

appeal being hopelessly time barred deserves to be dismissed on the

count of limitation alone.

9. Now proceeding on the assumption though not holding so, let us

examine whether the Appellant has been able to carve out a case on

merit for judicial intervention qua the impugned order.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 10

10. Admittedly, 'Sai Wardha Power Generation Limited' had to

undergo Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process which culminated in

the approval of Resolution Plan submitted by 'Consortium of Sri City

Private Limited' and 'KCR Enterprise LLP' (Resolution Applicants) by the

Committee of Creditors with vote shares of about 76%. Application

under Section 31 was filed by the Resolution Professional seeking

approval of the Adjudicating Authority qua such Resolution Plan.

According to Appellant, the Corporate Debtor was operating in an area

notified as Special Economic Zone governed by different businesses and

trade laws including 'SEZ Act, 2005' and 'SEZ Rules, 2006' framed

thereunder designed to achieve certain objectives which include

increased trade balance, employment, increased investment, job

creation and effective administration. Section 51 of the 'SEZ Act, 2005'

has non-obstante provision and it reads as under:

"51. Act to have overriding effect.- The

provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding

anything inconsistent herewith contained in any other

law for the time being in force or in any other

instrument having effect by virtue of any law other

than this Act."

11. It is abundantly clear that the 'SEZ Act, 2005' has overriding

effect and wherever the extant laws dealing with the matters dealt with

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 11

under the Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, the

provision of the Act will prevail. The Act provides for exemption from

duties of Customs with provisions contained in Section 76(E), (F), (G)

and (H) which are reproduced hereinbelow:

"76.E. Exemption from duties of customs. Without

prejudice to the provisions of Sections 76F, 76G and 76H,

any goods admitted to a special economic zone shall be

exempt from duties of customs.

76.F. Levy of duties of customs.- Subject to the

conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this

behalf:

(a) any goods admitted to a special economic zone

from the domestic tariff area shall be chargeable to

export duties at such rates as are leviable on such

goods when exported;

(b) any goods removed from a special economic

zone for home consumption shall be chargeable to

duties of customs including anti-dumping,

countervailing and safeguard duties under the

Custom Tariff Act, 1975, where applicable, as

leviable on such goods when imported; and

(c) the rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any,

applicable to goods admitted to, or removed from, a

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 12

special economic zone shall be the rate and tariff

valuation in force as on the date of such admission

or removal, as the case may be, and where such

date is not ascertainable, on the date of payment of

the duty.

76.G. Authorized operations.- All goods admitted to a

special economic zone shall undergo such operations

including processing or manufacturing as may be

specified in the rules made in this behalf.

76.H. Goods utilized with a special economic zone.-

(1) The Central Government may make rules in this

behalf to enumerate the cases in which goods to be

utilized inside a special economic zone may be admitted

free of duties of customs and lay down the requirements

which shall be fulfilled.

(2) Goods utilized contrary to the provisions of rules

made under sub section (1) shall be chargeable to duties

of customs in the same manner as provided under clause

(b) of Section 76F as if they have been removed for home

consumption."

12. A bare look at these provisions reveals that while as a general rule

goods admitted to a Special Economic Zone have been exempted from

duties of Customs, duties of Customs can be levied on any goods as per

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 13

conditions specified in the Rules. Goods admitted to SEZ may undergo

operations including processing or manufacturing as specified in the

Rules. Central Government has been authorised to make Rules to

enumerate the cases in which goods sought to be utilized in a SEZ may

be admitted free of duties of Customs. Any breach thereof shall render

the goods chargeable to duties of Customs as if they were removed for

home consumption. A SEZ unit may opt out of SEZ with the approval of

Development Commissioner subject to payment of applicable duties on

the goods, raw materials and finished goods in stock etc. However,

penalty may be imposed under the Foreign Trade (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1992 if the unit has not achieved positive net foreign

exchange. Certain conditions have been made applicable on the exit of

the unit. The relevant provision is contained in Rule 74 of the Rules

which reads as under:

"74. Exit of Units.-- (1) The Unit may opt out of

Special Economic Zone with the approval of the

Development Commissioner and such exit shall be

subject to payment of applicable duties on the

imported or indigenous capital goods, raw

materials, components, consumables, spares and

finished goods in stock:

Provided that if the unit has not achieved positive

Net Foreign Exchange, the exit shall be subject to

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 14

penalty that may be imposed under the Foreign

Trade (Development and Regulation), Act, 1992.

(2) The following conditions shall apply on the exit of

the Unit, namely:--

(i) Penalty imposed by the competent authority

would be paid and in case an appeal against an

order-imposing penalty is pending, exit shall be

considered if the unit has obtained a stay order

from competent authority and has furnished a

Bank Guarantee for the penalty adjudicated by

the appropriate authority unless the appellate

authority makes a specific order exempting the

Unit from this requirement;

(ii) In case the Unit has failed to fulfil the terms

and conditions of the Letter of Approval and

penal proceedings are to be taken up or are in

process, a legal undertaking for payment of

penalties, that may be imposed, shall be

executed with the Development Commissioner;

(iii) The Unit shall continue to be treated a Unit

till the date of final exit.

(3) In the event of a gems and jewellery unit ceasing

its operation, gold and other precious metals, alloys,

gem and other materials available for manufacture

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 15

of jewellery shall be handed over to an agency

nominated by the Central Government at a price to

be determined by that agency.

(4) Development Commissioner may permit a Unit,

as one time option, to exit from Special Economic

Zone on payment of duty on capital goods under the

prevailing Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme

under the Foreign Trade Policy subject to the Unit

satisfying the eligibility criteria under that Scheme.

(5) Depreciation norms for capital goods shall be as

given in sub-rule (1) of rule 49."

13. It is manifestly clear that the dues or penalty payable is to be

calculated at the time of exit from SEZ with the approval of the

Development Commissioner and subject to payment of applicable

duties. This proposition of law is not disputed by the Respondent who

submits that the quantification of the amount at Rs.45 Crores for being

paid to the Appellant by the Corporate Debtor in lieu of de-notification

from SEZ is only an estimated amount which is subject to change with

exact amount payable to be arrived at the time of exit in accordance

with Rule 74. Corporate Debtor, operating in SEZ, may have been

enjoying various benefits including exemption from Customs duty in

respect of its authorised operations which, it cannot be denied, would

be at the cost of burden on public resources. However, enjoyment of

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 16

such benefits would be in exercise of a lawful right conferred under a

statutory scheme which was to achieve an objective bearing nexus with

promotion of national interest. However, that cannot be a legal

impediment in making an exit and opting out of SEZ which has been

subjected to payment of applicable duties and levy of penalty in the

event of not achieving positive net foreign exchange. The mechanism

provided under Rule 74 takes care of all eventualities to ensure that the

provision regarding exit of unit from SEZ is not resorted to for nefarious

design of appropriating chargeable duties. Power to levy penalty is an

additional safeguard against tax/ duty evasion and fiscal fraud.

14. In the instant case, there is no controversy on the vital aspect of

the exact amount chargeable for de-notification of the unit of Corporate

Debtor being determined by the Development Commissioner at the time

of exit in terms of Rule 74. This is in fact admitted position and the

Appellant also has admitted that the amount of Rs.45 Crores set apart

in the approved Resolution Plan for de-notification of the Corporate

Debtor from SEZ is not a crystallised debt but an amount to be

assessed by the Development Commissioner in exercise of its

jurisdiction. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the estimated amount of

Rs.45 Crores has been set apart in the approved Resolution Plan to take

care of the duties chargeable and penalties imposable by the

Development Commissioner while according approval to opting out of

Corporate Debtor from SEZ. Admittedly, the Resolution Applicant has

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 17

applied for the de-notification of the unit of the Corporate Debtor before

the Development Commissioner. The approved Resolution Plan is

binding on all stakeholders including the Central Government but it

would not be correct to hold that the amount of Rs.45 crores set apart

is a crystallised debt and in that sense same is not subject to any

variation or change. The proposed Resolution Plan allocated an amount

of Rs.45 Crores for being paid to the Development Commissioner as

chargeable duty/ penalty for de-notification from SEZ purely on the

basis of an estimate. Such allocation was to take care of the duties

chargeable/ penalties imposed being realized from the Successful

Resolution Applicant when the Development Commissioner was

approached for grant of approval within the ambit of Rule 74. It appears

that the Corporate Debtor was not enjoying any benefit as a SEZ unit

when the Resolution Plan was approved and in view of the same, the

proposed Resolution Plan provided for seeking its de-notification. While

dealing with reason for de-notification, it was stated in the Resolution

Plan (at page 15):

"Since the Corporate Debtor is currently not availing

any benefit as an SEZ, it seems prudent to get de-

notified as the Customs Act, 1962 has a provision for

the same. By paying a one-time cost to be arrived at

based on the written down value of the fixed assets,

such de-notification is possible. Based on the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 18

internal estimates, a sum of INR 450,000,000

(Rupees Forty Five Crores Only) shall be required to

be paid to the Custom Department for the de-

notification. The Resolution Applicant shall infuse

this capital immediately upon finalisation of the

amount required to be paid. Once de-notified, the

Corporate Debtor shall be exempt from paying

customs duty of INR 0.264/Kwh for the entire

balance life of the plant resulting in huge saving."

15. It appears that representation made to Development

Commissioner for assessment and de-notification of the Corporate

Debtor is still pending. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent that

unless the said representation was decided by the development

Commissioner, the Corporate Debtor will have to pay additional cost of

Rs. 0.26/- per unit of power generated and transmitted thereby

mounting the burden on the Corporate Debtor. It is well settled by now

that the 'I&B Code' overrides other laws and under Section 31 of the

'I&B Code' a Resolution Plan approved by the Committee of Creditors

and meeting the requirements under Section 30(2) has to be approved

by the Adjudicating Authority. Commercial wisdom of the Committee of

Creditors in regard to the business decision taken while evaluating a

Resolution Plan has to prevail and unless the plan approved by the

Committee of Creditors is in conflict with any provision of law and the

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 19

distribution mechanism balances the interests of all stakeholders

besides taking care of maximisation of value of assets of the Corporate

Debtor, judicial intervention would not be warranted. In the instant

case, as we find that the amount of Rs.45 Crores has been set apart

only as an estimated value of the chargeable duties/ leviable penalties

being imposed by the Development Commissioner while approving the

exit of Corporate Debtor from SEZ, contravention of any law is not made

out. Issue regarding chargeable duties and penalties imposable by the

Development Commissioner while considering exit/ opting out of

Corporate Debtor from SEZ and its de-notification adjudicatable by the

Competent Authority being not in controversy and the Adjudicating

Authority being found to have exercised its jurisdiction in approving the

Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant within the

parameters of law and contours of settled legal position, it cannot be

said that the Adjudicating Authority has encroached upon the

jurisdiction of the Development Commissioner under the Act and

usurped his authority. The argument on this score being devoid of merit

is rejected.

16. Claim of Appellant amounting to Rs.36,21,42,252/- having been

rejected during the Resolution Process and the same not having been

assailed by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority, the

Appellant is not entitled to raise issue in this regard for the first time in

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020 20

appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. Argument advanced on this

aspect is accordingly repelled.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that the Appellant has failed to carve out a case for judicial

intervention in appeal on merits too. There being no legal infirmity in

the impugned order and the appeal being barred by limitation, the same

is dismissed. No order as to costs.

[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Acting Chairperson

[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)

NEW DELHI 13th July, 2020

AR

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 268 of 2020