{"id":110712,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3"},"modified":"2015-11-28T22:23:45","modified_gmt":"2015-11-28T16:53:45","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/30\/2010\t 1\/ 12\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 30 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMILESTONE\nORGANICS LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYN RAVANI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad has filed this Tax Appeal<br \/>\n\tunder Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to<br \/>\n\tformulate the following substantial question of law for the<br \/>\n\tdetermination and consideration of this Court :-\n<\/p>\n<p> Whether the CESTAT<br \/>\ncommitted error in interpreting proviso of Section 11AC of the<br \/>\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 by offering to an assessee to deposit amount<br \/>\nof interest and penalty within 30 days of its order to avail benefit<br \/>\nof reduced penalty at 25% of duty, though CESTAT has not<br \/>\nre-determined the quantum of duty ?\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr. Y. N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue<br \/>\n\tand perused the orders passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tbrief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the adjudicating<br \/>\n\tauthority had passed an order in original on 27.02.2004 raising the<br \/>\n\tdemand of duty of Rs.1,37,435\/- under Section 11 A (2) of the<br \/>\n\tCentral Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs.1,37,435\/- under<br \/>\n\tSection-11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule-25 of<br \/>\n\tthe Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Sub-rule (2) of Rule-13 of the<br \/>\n\tCenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The respondent   assessee has<br \/>\n\tchallenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his<br \/>\n\torder dated 25.06.2004 upheld the demand of duty, however set aside<br \/>\n\tthe penalty levied under Section 11AC of the Act on the ground that<br \/>\n\tthe duty was paid before issuance of show cause notice. Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred Second Appeal<br \/>\n\tbefore the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 19.9.2005<br \/>\n\tdismissed the said Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\tfurther aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue<br \/>\n\tfiled Tax Appeal No.591 of 2006 before this Court for enhancement of<br \/>\n\tpenalty equal to duty evaded under Section 11AC of the Central<br \/>\n\tExcise Act.  This Court vide its order dated 18.02.2009 decided the<br \/>\n\tsaid tax appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a<br \/>\n\tdirection to decide the issue afresh in light of the Apex Court<br \/>\n\tdecision in the case of M\/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 2008<br \/>\n\t(231) ELT 3 (SC).\n<\/p>\n<p>Pursuant<br \/>\n\tto the order of this Court, the Tribunal decided the appeal and by<br \/>\n\tits common order passed in 17 matters on 15\/16\/17.07.2009, has<br \/>\n\tenhanced the penalty equal to the duty confirmed against the<br \/>\n\trespondent   assessee. However, relying upon the judgment of the<br \/>\n\tPunjab &amp; Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of<br \/>\n\tCentral Excise, Rohtak V\/s. J.R. Fabrics Private Limited, 2009 (238)<br \/>\n\tELT 209 (P&amp;H) set aside the order passed by the adjudicating<br \/>\n\tauthority with a direction to give an option to the respondent<br \/>\n\tassessee to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days of<br \/>\n\tthe communication of the order, in which case the penalty shall<br \/>\n\tstand restricted to 25% of the duty amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis this order which is under challenge in the present tax appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRavani has submitted that in the remand matter, the Tribunal has<br \/>\n\twrongly passed an order by incorrect interpretation of the decision<br \/>\n\tof the Apex Court in the case of M\/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors<br \/>\n\t(Supra).  He has further submitted that the Tribunal can give such<br \/>\n\toption to the assessee only on those cases, where the duty demanded<br \/>\n\tto be payable has reduced or increased by it, which is clearly<br \/>\n\tstipulated in the Central Excise Act.  Third and fourth proviso to<br \/>\n\tSection 11AC is regarding giving benefit of reduced penalty of 25%<br \/>\n\tof the duty, in case the duty determined is changed (either<br \/>\n\tincreased or decreased) by the appellate authorities. However, in<br \/>\n\tthe present case, the Tribunal has not redetermined the quantum of<br \/>\n\tduty and, therefore, the Tribunal has no power to give the option to<br \/>\n\tpay reduced penalty of 25% of the duty within 30 days of<br \/>\n\tcommunication of its order to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRavani has invited the attention of the Court to the recent Circular<br \/>\n\tdated 15.09.2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise &amp;<br \/>\n\tCustoms, clarifying that in order to avail the benefit of 25%<br \/>\n\tpenalty, the duty, interest and penalty are required to be paid<br \/>\n\twithin 30 days of communication of the order passed by the<br \/>\n\tadjudicating authority.  The fourth proviso to Section 11AC<br \/>\n\tstipulates that wherever duty amount is increased at any appellate<br \/>\n\tstage, in that case, in order to avail the benefit of 25% penalty,<br \/>\n\tthe assessee is required to pay differential amount within 30 days<br \/>\n\tof the passing of the order by the appellate authority.  A combined<br \/>\n\treading of all the four proviso would, therefore, make it clear that<br \/>\n\tthe benefit of 25% penalty is applicable only when the assessee has<br \/>\n\tpaid duty, interest and the reduced penalty within 30 days of<br \/>\n\tcommunication of the order passed by the adjudicating authority.<br \/>\n\tMr. Ravani has, therefore, submitted that the intention of<br \/>\n\tlegislation is to provide the option of reduced penalty when first<br \/>\n\ttime issue is adjudicated by original authority.  It has never<br \/>\n\tintended to provide option at first appellate stage or even by the<br \/>\n\tTribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mr. Ravani and also perused<br \/>\n\tvery minutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter<br \/>\n\tof fact, all these submissions urged by Mr. Ravani were already<br \/>\n\tconsidered by this Court in its order dated 18.11.2009 in the case<br \/>\n\tof Messers Exotic<br \/>\n\tAssociates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal No.572 of<br \/>\n\t2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942 of 2008,<br \/>\n\tin the case of Commissioner of Central Excise &amp; Customs Vs. Rama<br \/>\n\tSynsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21.1.2010.<br \/>\n\tThis Court after considering the decision of  Commissioner<br \/>\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (79)     RLT<br \/>\n\t109 (Delhi), Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles, 2008 (231) ELT<br \/>\n\t3 (SC), Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning &amp; Weaving Mills,<br \/>\n\t 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), K. P. Pouches (P) Ltd., Vs.<br \/>\n\tUnion of India, 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi), Commissioner of Central<br \/>\n\tExcise, Rohtak Vs. J. R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (238) ELT 209,<br \/>\n\thas taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal retaining<br \/>\n\tthe penalty of 25% of the duty amount seems to be quite justified.<br \/>\n\tFor the reasons recorded in the said two judgments, we do not feel<br \/>\n\tit necessary to take any different view in this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave an occasion to deal with similar such submission made on behalf<br \/>\n\tof Revenue with regard to non-compliance of the pre-condition for<br \/>\n\tavailment of benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section<br \/>\n\t11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the first proviso, the<br \/>\n\tduty amount was not paid with interest and even the reduced penalty<br \/>\n\tof 25% was not deposited by the respondent within 30 days from the<br \/>\n\tdate of such determination, as required<br \/>\n\tunder second proviso to Section 11AC of the Act.  Despite this, the<br \/>\n\tCourt has granted benefit of the Proviso by issuing direction to the<br \/>\n\tadjudicating authority to give an option to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>Even<br \/>\n\twith regard to the submission of Mr. Ravani that the adjudicating<br \/>\n\tauthority is not under any statutory obligation to set out in its<br \/>\n\torder, the availability of benefit of reduced penalty prescribed<br \/>\n\tunder proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and to give<br \/>\n\tan option to such person liable for penalty under that Section, was<br \/>\n\tconsidered by us in Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal No.869<br \/>\n\tof 2007 decided on 18.11.2009. We have observed therein that the<br \/>\n\tadjudicating authority has not calculated the interest neither in<br \/>\n\tthe order-in-original nor even thereafter. It is, therefore, too<br \/>\n\tmuch to expect from the respondent &#8211; assessee to pay the interest<br \/>\n\talongwith the duty amount in absence<br \/>\n\tof such calculation of interest. As far as statutory obligation of<br \/>\n\tthe adjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise<br \/>\n\tDepartment itself has earlier issued Circular on 22.5.2008 wherein<br \/>\n\tit is clarified that in all cases wherein penalty under Section 11AC<br \/>\n\tof the Act is imposed, the provisions contained in the first and<br \/>\n\tsecond proviso of Section 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in<br \/>\n\tthe order-in-original itself by the adjudicating authority. It is,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, not open for the revenue to agitate this issue before the<br \/>\n\tCourt in contradiction of the Circular issued by the Central Excise<br \/>\n\tDepartment. This Court in  Messers Exotic Associates<br \/>\n\t(Supra) has<br \/>\n\tdirected the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order giving<br \/>\n\toption to the assessee to pay the duty amount within 30 days by<br \/>\n\tmaking it explicitly clear in the order itself that if the assessee<br \/>\n\t wants to avail such option he is permitted to do so.  In the case<br \/>\n\ton hand, since the duty<br \/>\n\tamount has already been paid by the respondent &#8211; assessee and if the<br \/>\n\tinterest and\/or reduced penalty of 25% were not paid by the<br \/>\n\trespondent &#8211; assessee, the adjudicating authority may send a<br \/>\n\tcommunication to the respondent &#8211; assessee indicating therein that<br \/>\n\tthe particular amount of interest and\/or 25% of the penalty of the<br \/>\n\tduty amount is not paid by the respondent &#8211;  assessee and hence if<br \/>\n\tthe assessee wants to avail the benefit of the reduced penalty of<br \/>\n\t25%, such amount of interest and\/or penalty of 25% should be paid<br \/>\n\twithin 30 days from the date of receipt of such communication,<br \/>\n\tfailing which they would be liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC<br \/>\n\tequivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSince the order passed by<br \/>\n\tthe Tribunal is in accordance with the view taken by this Court,<br \/>\n\tthere is no question of considering the Circular issued by the<br \/>\n\tCentral Board of Indirect Taxes on which reliance was placed by Mr.<br \/>\n\tRavani.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe above view of the matter, we do not see any substance in this<br \/>\n\ttax appeal and no substantial question of law can be said to have<br \/>\n\tarisen out of the order of the Tribunal.  This appeal is, therefore,<br \/>\n\tsummarily dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      [K. A. PUJ, J.] [RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.]<\/p>\n<p>kks<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/30\/2010 1\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 30 of 2010 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus MILESTONE ORGANICS LTD &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-110712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-28T16:53:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-28T16:53:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\"},\"wordCount\":1611,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-28T16:53:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-28T16:53:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-28T16:53:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3"},"wordCount":1611,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3","name":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-28T16:53:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110712\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}