{"id":112025,"date":"2007-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-01-26T10:46:18","modified_gmt":"2018-01-26T05:16:18","slug":"ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: Bhan<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5345 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCommissioner of Central Excise, Delhi\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
BHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The  assessee-appellant (hereinafter referred to  as<\/p>\n
  “the  appellant”),  being aggrieved  by  the  Final  Order<\/p>\n
  No.239\/2001-B  dated  17-04-2001  passed  by  the  Custom,<\/p>\n
  Excise  &  Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal  (hereinafter<\/p>\n
  referred  to  as “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.E\/3322\/2000-<\/p>\n
  B,  has  filed the present appeal under section 35L(b)  of<\/p>\n
  the  Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to  as<\/p>\n
  “the  Act”).   The  Tribunal by  the  impugned  order  has<\/p>\n
  rejected  the  appeal filed by the appellant  seeking  the<\/p>\n
  classification of “plastic name plates” under  Chapter  87<\/p>\n
  as  `parts and accessories’ of motor vehicles and  instead<\/p>\n
  classified  it  as `other plastic products’ under  Chapter<\/p>\n
  39.<\/p>\n
FACTS<\/p>\n
  1.    The  appellant is a small-scale unit,  manufacturing<\/p>\n
     plastic name plates for motor vehicles in accordance with<\/p>\n
     the specifications and designs supplied by the customers,<\/p>\n
     who are the vehicle manufacturers.  The entire production of<\/p>\n
     the appellant is sold to the vehicle manufacturers alone.<\/p>\n
  2.   Between 1986 and 1994, the classification lists filed<\/p>\n
     by the appellant claimed the classification of name plates<\/p>\n
     under headings 87.08 and 87.14 and the same were approved by<\/p>\n
     the Department from time to time.  On 02-08-1994, a show<\/p>\n
     cause  notice was issued by the Assistant Collector  of<\/p>\n
     Central Excise, Ambala proposing to re-classify the name<\/p>\n
     plates under heading 39.26 as articles of plastics.  The<\/p>\n
     notice was however subsequently dropped and an order-in-<\/p>\n
     original  dated 08-11-1994 was passed stating that  the<\/p>\n
     appropriate classification of the name plates was under<\/p>\n
     Chapter 87.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  3.   Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise, New<\/p>\n
     Delhi  exercising powers under section 35E of  the  Act<\/p>\n
     reviewed the above order and filed an appeal before the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner (Appeals).  The Commissioner (Appeals) by the<\/p>\n
     order dated 31-10-2000 allowed the appeal of the Revenue and<\/p>\n
     classified the plastic name plates under heading 39.26.<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the<\/p>\n
     appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was<\/p>\n
     rejected by the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  4.    The  Tribunal  rejected the appeal of the  appellant<\/p>\n
     primarily by recording the following findings:<\/p>\n
       a.   It held that “a motor vehicle is a complete vehicle<\/p>\n
          without affixation of emblems or name plates” and that “it<\/p>\n
          cannot be treated as a part without which the motor vehicle<\/p>\n
          is not complete”;\n<\/p>\n
       b.   It distinguished the case of Collector of Central<\/p>\n
          Excise, Calcutta v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., Calcutta<\/a><\/p>\n
          [1989 Supp (1) SCC 128] stating that it examined name plates<\/p>\n
          as inputs and not as parts of the fan;\n<\/p>\n
       c.   The fact that a name plate can be used only in respect<\/p>\n
          of the product whose name it carries does not make it a part<\/p>\n
          of the motor vehicle;\n<\/p>\n
       d.   That Heading 39.26 specifically covered articles of<\/p>\n
          plastics and since it was not in dispute that the impugned<\/p>\n
          goods were made of plastics, they were classifiable only<\/p>\n
          under heading 39.26.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  5.    Thus,  the essential question for consideration  is:<\/p>\n
     Whether these `plastic name plates’ are to be classified<\/p>\n
     under headings 87.08 and 87.14 as `parts and accessories’ of<\/p>\n
     motor vehicles or under heading 39.26 as other articles of<\/p>\n
     plastics?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  6.    Before  adverting  to the submissions  made  by  the<\/p>\n
     opposing Counsels for the parties in respect of the above<\/p>\n
     question, it is worthwhile to mention the competing headings<\/p>\n
     relevant to the present discussion.\n<\/p>\n
COMPETING HEADINGS:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  7.    The relevant portions of heading 87.08 and 87.14 are<\/p>\n
     reproduced below for reference:\n<\/p>\n
       ” 87.08 Parts and accessories of the motor
\n               vehicles of heading Nos.87.01 to 87.05<\/p>\n
       87.14     Parts and accessories of vehicles of  heading
\n            Nos.87.11 to 87.13″\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  8.   The relevant portions of heading 39.26 are reproduced<\/p>\n
     below for reference:\n<\/p>\n
\n       39.26 Other articles of plastics<\/p>\n
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION<\/p>\n
  9.    Having laid out the facts and the relevant headings in<\/p>\n
     the present matter, we can now proceed to the legal issues<\/p>\n
     that we are required to decide upon.  Based on the arguments<\/p>\n
     of the Counsels for the parties, the following issues arise<\/p>\n
     for determination:\n<\/p>\n
       a.   Whether `plastic name plates’ are classifiable under<\/p>\n
          headings 87.08 and 87.14 by falling within the scope of term<\/p>\n
          `parts and accessories’ of motor vehicles;<\/p>\n
       b.   Alternatively, even if they do fall within the scope of<\/p>\n
          `parts and accessories’ of motor vehicles, whether there is<\/p>\n
          any provision in the Explanatory Notes that specifically<\/p>\n
          excludes `plastic name plates’ from headings 87.08 and<\/p>\n
          87.14?\n<\/p>\n
ISSUE NO.1<\/p>\n
  10.    The first issue that we are required to examine  is<\/p>\n
     whether `plastic name plates’ can be considered `parts and<\/p>\n
     accessories’ of motor vehicles.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  11.    The Tribunal has answered the above question in the<\/p>\n
     negative.  Significantly, the Tribunal has only examined<\/p>\n
     whether the name plates can be considered `parts’ of motor<\/p>\n
     vehicles.  It has not at all considered whether these name<\/p>\n
     plates can be considered `accessories’ of motor vehicles.<\/p>\n
     The relevant portion of the judgment of the Tribunal is<\/p>\n
     reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          According  to Sarkar’s `Words and Phrases  of
\n          Excise  & Customs’, Second Edition,  part  is
\n          “an  element of a sub-assembly, not  normally
\n          useful  by itself and not amenable to further
\n          disassembly  for  maintenance  purpose”.   In
\n          common   parlance  parts  are  used  in   the
\n          manufacture of the final product and  without
\n          which  the  final product cannot be conceived
\n          of.   A  motor vehicle is a complete  vehicle
\n          without affixation of emblems or name  plates
\n          and  we  agree  with the submissions  of  the
\n          learned  DR  that it cannot be treated  as  a
\n          part  without which the motor vehicle is  not
\n          complete  ..  A name plate can  certainly  be
\n          used  only  in  respect of the product  whose
\n          name  it  carries but it does not make  it  a
\n          part  of  the  motor vehicle on this  ground.
\n          Heading 39.26 specifically covers articles of
\n          plastics and as it is not in dispute that the
\n          impugned  goods  have been made  of  plastics
\n          they  would  be  classifiable  under  heading
\n          39.26 only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
  12.  The submissions made by Mr. Radhakrishnan, Counsel for<\/p>\n
     the Revenue echo the position taken by the Tribunal above.<\/p>\n
  13.  Counsel for the appellant however submits that the test<\/p>\n
     to  determine  whether the name plates are  `parts  and<\/p>\n
     accessories’ of the test according to Note 3 to Section XVII<\/p>\n
     of  the  Explanatory Notes in the Harmonized  Commodity<\/p>\n
     Description and Coding System [hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
     “Explanatory Notes”], is the `sole and exclusive’  use.<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the appellant submits that the name plates are<\/p>\n
     solely and exclusively used for motor vehicles, since all<\/p>\n
     the name plates are sold to manufacturers of vehicles and<\/p>\n
     nothing enters the spare parts market for use elsewhere.  He<\/p>\n
     further submits that the name plates are permanently affixed<\/p>\n
     to the vehicle from the assembly line itself.  He also drew<\/p>\n
     our attention to two circulars of the Department [Chandigarh<\/p>\n
     Collectorate Trade Notice No.94-CE\/90 dated 30-0-1990 and<\/p>\n
     Calcutta II Collectorate Trade Notice No.10\/87 dated 19-02-<\/p>\n
     1987] where `plastic boxes’ and `helmet-locking devices’,<\/p>\n
     items  which  are according to him less necessary,  are<\/p>\n
     directed to be considered `parts and accessories’ of motor<\/p>\n
     vehicles.  Finally, he submits that the headings  under<\/p>\n
     Chapter 87 should gain primacy as they are more specific<\/p>\n
     while the heading under Chapter 39 is residuary and more<\/p>\n
     general in nature.  Thus, Counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
     challenged the decision of the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
  14.    In  the light of the rival submissions made by  the<\/p>\n
     counsel  for the parties before us, we are required  to<\/p>\n
     determine whether the Tribunal has correctly held  that<\/p>\n
     `plastic name plates’ do not fall within the purview of<\/p>\n
     headings 87.08 and 87.14.  As far as these two headings are<\/p>\n
     concerned, it is possible to include two kinds of goods<\/p>\n
     therein – those which are either `parts’ of motor vehicles<\/p>\n
     or those which are `accessories’ of motor vehicles.  While a<\/p>\n
     case can be made for the inclusion of name plates in Chapter<\/p>\n
     87 as `parts’ as well as `accessories’ of motor vehicles, we<\/p>\n
     are not examining the former category.  Without going into<\/p>\n
     the  question  of whether name plates fall  within  the<\/p>\n
     definition of `parts’ of motor vehicles, for the present<\/p>\n
     purpose,  we  are  restricting ourselves  only  to  the<\/p>\n
     interpretation of the broader term, `accessories’.  Thus,<\/p>\n
     regardless of whether name plates can be considered `parts’<\/p>\n
     of motor vehicles, we are determining whether at the very<\/p>\n
     least, name plates can be considered `accessories’ of motor<\/p>\n
     vehicles.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  15.    The  term `accessory’ is defined in The New Collins<\/p>\n
     Concise Dictionary of the English Language (1982) as “a<\/p>\n
     supplementary part or object, as of a car, appliance, etc”.<\/p>\n
     Other  definitions for the accessory are found  in  the<\/p>\n
     Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd edition, 2005) and include the<\/p>\n
     following:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “Something   of   secondary  or   subordinate
\n          importance;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Something contributing in subordinate  degree
\n          to  a general result or effect; an adjunct or
\n          accompaniment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Accessory  is an article or device that  adds
\n          to  convenience or effectiveness of,  but  is
\n          not essential to, main machinery.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  16.   This Court has considered and decided as to what the<\/p>\n
     meaning of the term `accessory’ is in a few earlier cases.<\/p>\n
     In  Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of  Andhra<\/p>\n
     Pradesh<\/a>  [(1976) 2 SCC 273], the Court was required  to<\/p>\n
     examine whether “arc carbon” was an ‘accessory’ to cinema<\/p>\n
     projectors or other cinematographic equipment under item 4<\/p>\n
     of Ist Schedule to Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,<\/p>\n
     1957.  Answering in the affirmative, the Court opined that:<\/p>\n
          We  find that the term “accessories” is  used
\n          in  the schedule to describe goods which  may
\n          have  been manufactured for use as an aid  or
\n          addition.   A  sense  in  which   the   words
\n          accessory  is  used given in Webster’s  Third
\n          New International Dictionary as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “An  object or device that is  not
\n             essential  in itself but that  adds  to
\n             the     beauty,     convenience,     or
\n             effectiveness of some-thing else”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Other     meanings    given    there     are:
\n          “supplementary or secondary to  something  of
\n          greater or primary importance”: “additional”:
\n          “any   of  several  mechanical  devices  that
\n          assist  in operating or controlling the  tone
\n          resources of an organ”. “Accessories” are not
\n          necessarily  confined to particular  machines
\n          for  which they may serve as aids.  The  same
\n          item  may  be an accessory or more  than  one
\n          kind of instrument. (Para10)<\/p>\n
           It will be noticed that the entry we have to
\n          interpret   includes  “parts”  as   well   as
\n          “accessories” which are required for  use  in
\n          projectors     or    other    cinematographic
\n          equipment.  We think that the Andhra  Pradesh
\n          High  Court correctly held that the main  use
\n          of  the  arc carbons Under consideration  was
\n          duly  proved  to  be that  of  production  of
\n          powerful light used in projectors in cinemas.
\n          The  fact  that  they can also  be  used  for
\n          search lights, signalling, stage lighting, or
\n          where  powerful  lighting for photography  or
\n          other  purposes  may be required,  could  not
\n          detract from the classification to which  the
\n          carbon  arcs  belong. That is  determined  by
\n          their  ordinary or commonly known purpose  or
\n          user.  This, as already observed  by  us,  is
\n          evident from the fact that they are known  as
\n          cinema  arc  carbons”  in  the  market.  This
\n          finding  was  enough,  in  our  opinion,   to
\n          justify  the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh
\n          High Court that the goods under consideration
\n          are  covered  by the relevant  entry  No.  4.
\n          (Para11)
\n                                  [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
  17.    The  above decision was relied upon in the case  of<\/p>\n
     Mehra Bros. v. The Joint Commercial Officer, Madras<\/a> [(1991)<\/p>\n
     1 SCC 514].  The primary issue before the Court in this case<\/p>\n
     was whether `car seat covers’ could be considered `articles<\/p>\n
     adapted to use generally as parts and accessories of motor<\/p>\n
     vehicles’.  The Court, holding that car seat covers and<\/p>\n
     upholstery were in fact accessories to motor  vehicles,<\/p>\n
     observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “In Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition  at
\n          p.   13  ‘accessory’  has  been  defined   as
\n          “anything which is joined to another thing as
\n          an ornament, or to render it more perfect, or
\n          which accompanies it, or is connected with it
\n          as  an incident, or as subordinate to it,  or
\n          which  belongs  to  or with  it,  adjunct  or
\n          accompaniment,   a   thing   of   subordinate
\n          importance.   Aiding   or   contributing   in
\n          secondary way of assisting in or contributing
\n          to as a subordinate”. (Para 3)
\n          .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In our view the correct test would be whether
\n          the article or articles in question would  be
\n          an adjunct or an accompaniment or an addition
\n          for the convenient use of another part of the
\n          vehicle  or  adds to the beauty, elegance  or
\n          comfort for the use of the motor vehicle or a
\n          supplementary  or secondary to  the  main  or
\n          primary  importance. Whether  an  article  or
\n          part  is an accessory cannot be decided  with
\n          reference  to its necessity to its  effective
\n          use  of  the  vehicle  as  a  whole.  General
\n          adaptability may be relevant but may  not  by
\n          itself   be  conclusive.  Take  for  instance
\n          Stereo   or   Air-conditioner  designed   and
\n          manufactured for fitment in a motor  car.  It
\n          would   not   be   absolutely  necessary   or
\n          generally  adapted. But when they are  fitted
\n          to  the  vehicle, undoubtedly  it  would  add
\n          comfort  or  enjoyment  in  the  use  of  the
\n          vehicle.  Another  test  may  be  whether   a
\n          particular article or articles or parts,  can
\n          be  said  to  be  available for  sale  in  an
\n          automobile  market  or  shops  or  places  of
\n          manufacture; if the dealer says it is  to  be
\n          available certainly such an article  or  part
\n          would  be manufactured or kept for sale  only
\n          as  an  accessory for the use  in  the  motor
\n          vehicle.  Of course, this may not also  be  a
\n          conclusive test but it is given only  by  way
\n          of  illustration.  Undoubtedly  some  of  the
\n          parts  like  axle, steering,  tyres,  battery
\n          etc. are absolutely necessary accessories for
\n          the  effective use of the motor  vehicle.  If
\n          the  test that each accessory must add to the
\n          convenience or effectiveness of  the  use  of
\n          the car as a whole is given acceptance many a
\n          part  in the motor car by this process  would
\n          fall outside the ambit of accessories to  the
\n          motor  car. That would not appear to  be  the
\n          intention of the legislature… (Para 5)<\/p>\n
                                    [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
  18.   The view taken regarding the term `accessory’ in the<\/p>\n
     above two cases has been reiterated in the cases of Union<\/p>\n
     Carbide India Ltd. v. State of AP [1995 Supp (2) SCC 267]<\/p>\n
     and Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Allied Air-<\/a><\/p>\n
     conditioners Corp. (Regd.) [(2006) 7 SCC 735].<\/p>\n
  19.   The Court was also faced with similar circumstances in<\/p>\n
     the case of Jay Engineering (supra).  In this case, the<\/p>\n
     Respondent was the manufacturer of electric  fans,  and<\/p>\n
     brought into its factory name plates under tariff item 68 of<\/p>\n
     the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The name plates were<\/p>\n
     affixed to the fans before marketing them.  Here, the Court<\/p>\n
     emphasized on the necessity of name plates for the marketing<\/p>\n
     of the product.  The Court observed:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “In  those circumstances, in our opinion, the
\n          Tribunal  was  right  in  arriving   at   the
\n          conclusion that the nameplate was not a piece
\n          of  decoration.  Without the  nameplate,  the
\n          electric fans as such, could not be marketed;
\n          and  that  the  dealer was  entitled  to  the
\n          benefit of the notification No. 201\/79-CE for
\n          the  purpose  of obtaining pro forma  credit.
\n          Fans  with  name plates, have  certain  value
\n          which  the fans without the name plates,  did
\n          not have. If that be so, then the value added
\n          for  the  accretion of nameplate was entitled
\n          to  pro  forma credit in terms  of  the  said
\n          notification. It is true that an electric fan
\n          may  perform its essential functions  without
\n          affixation of the nameplate, but that is  not
\n          enough.   Electric   fans   do   not   become
\n          marketable  products  without  affixation  of
\n          name plates. (Para 9)<\/p>\n
                                [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
  20.   It  is evident therefore, that an `accessory’ by its<\/p>\n
     very definition is something supplementary or subordinate in<\/p>\n
     nature and need not be essential for the actual functioning<\/p>\n
     of the product.  Applying the test laid down in Mehra Bros.<\/p>\n
     case (supra), it cannot be denied that name plates add to<\/p>\n
     the convenient use of the motor vehicle.  Name plates serve<\/p>\n
     a very useful purpose inasmuch as it gives an identity to<\/p>\n
     the vehicle. Each vehicle comes with different brand name<\/p>\n
     and  in different models having distinct features.  The<\/p>\n
     manufacturers of different type of models of vehicles market<\/p>\n
     them  under a name and the vehicles are recognized  and<\/p>\n
     referred to by the name plate affixed on them.  Name plates<\/p>\n
     convey to the consumers the distinct features it carries.<\/p>\n
     Undoubtedly they add effectiveness and value to the vehicle<\/p>\n
     and are at the very least accessories of the vehicle.  Thus,<\/p>\n
     even if there was any difficulty in the inclusion of the<\/p>\n
     plastic name plates as `parts’ of the motor vehicles, they<\/p>\n
     would most certainly have been covered by the broader term<\/p>\n
     Qaccessory’.  In this view of the matter, we are of the<\/p>\n
     opinion that the Tribunal has erroneously come  to  the<\/p>\n
     conclusion that `plastic name plates’ are not `parts and<\/p>\n
     accessories’ of motor vehicles for the purposes of headings<\/p>\n
     87.08 and 87.14.\n<\/p>\n
ISSUE NO.2<\/p>\n
  21.   The  second  issue before consideration is  whether,<\/p>\n
     despite the inclusion of the plastic name plates within the<\/p>\n
     scope  of  the  `parts and accessories’, certain  other<\/p>\n
     provisions operate to remove or exclude plastic name plates<\/p>\n
     from Chapter 87.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  22.    This point was neither raised before nor decided by<\/p>\n
     the Tribunal although this point had been argued before the<\/p>\n
     authority  in  original as well as the Commissioner  of<\/p>\n
     appeals.  Both of them decided this point  against  the<\/p>\n
     appellant.    Option with us is either to remit the case to<\/p>\n
     the Tribunal for a decision on this point or decide the same<\/p>\n
     ourselves as this point had been decided by the authorities<\/p>\n
     below.  After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties<\/p>\n
     and after applying our mind on this point we have formed the<\/p>\n
     opinion that to avoid the unnecessary delay and expense to<\/p>\n
     the parties it would be appropriate for us to decide the<\/p>\n
     point ourselves.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  23.   In this regard, it has been submitted by Counsel for<\/p>\n
     the Revenue that the Explanatory Notes in the Harmonized<\/p>\n
     Commodity  Description and Coding  System  [hereinafter<\/p>\n
     referred  to as “HSN”] to Section XVII (which  includes<\/p>\n
     Chapter 87) make it clear that plastic name plates  are<\/p>\n
     excluded from the scope of Chapter 87 and are therefore<\/p>\n
     required to be classified under the residuary provision in<\/p>\n
     Chapter 39.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  24.   Since the submission of the Revenue is based purely on<\/p>\n
     the HSN Explanatory Notes, it is essential to reproduce the<\/p>\n
     relevant parts of the HSN Explanatory Notes.  The notes<\/p>\n
     below relevant headings, heading 87.08 and 87.14, state as<\/p>\n
     follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “This heading covers parts and accessories of
\n          the  motor  vehicles  of  headings  87.01  to
\n          87.05,  provided  the parts  and  accessories
\n          fulfil both the following conditions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (i)  They must be identifiable as being suitable for use
\n                  solely or principally with the above-mentioned vehicles; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) They must not be excluded by the provisions of the
\n                  Notes to Section XVII (see the corresponding General
\n                  Explanatory Note).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
     An  almost identical explanation exists under the Notes<\/p>\n
     to heading 87.14.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  25.    The effect of the above HSN Explanatory Notes is to<\/p>\n
     specifically exclude from the scope of these headings what<\/p>\n
     is  excluded in the general notes to the entire Section<\/p>\n
     (Section XVII), of which Chapter 87 is a part.  The General<\/p>\n
     Explanatory Note to Section XVII states as follows:<\/p>\n
          Section Notes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2.  – The expressions “parts” and “parts  and
\n          accessories”  do not apply to  the  following
\n          articles,   whether   or   not    they    are
\n          identifiable  as  for  the  goods   of   this
\n          section:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b)  Parts of general use, as defined in Note
\n          2  to Section XV, of base metal (section XV),
\n          or similar goods of plastics (Chapter 39)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.-  References  in  Chapters  86  to  88  to
\n          “parts”  or  “accessories” do  not  apply  to
\n          parts  or  accessories which are not suitable
\n          for   use  solely  or  principally  with  the
\n          articles  of  those  Chapters.   A  part   or
\n          accessory  which answers to a description  in
\n          two or more of the headings of those Chapters
\n          is  to be classified under that heading which
\n          corresponds to the principal use of that part
\n          or accessory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
     Further explanation regarding Note 2 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
            (A)  Parts and accessories excluded by Note
\n            2 to Section XVII
\n            .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2)  Parts of general use as defined  in
\n               Note  2  to  Section XV, for example,  .
\n               number plates, nationality plates,  etc.
\n               (such  goods  of  base  metals  fall  in
\n               Chapter   83,  and  similar   goods   of
\n               plastics fall in Chapter 39).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  26.   Referring to Note 2 of Chapter XV,<\/p>\n
       Section Notes.\n<\/p>\n
       .\n<\/p>\n
       2.-  Throughout the Nomenclature, the expression
\n       “parts of general use” means:\n<\/p>\n
       .\n<\/p>\n
          (c) Articles of headings.83.10..\n<\/p>\n
     Finally,  Heading 83.10 is entitled “SIGN PLATES,  NAME<\/p>\n
     PLATES,  ADDRESS  PLATES AND SIMILAR PLATES.,  OF  BASE<\/p>\n
     METAL.”  and includes various kinds of name  plates  in<\/p>\n
     further sub-headings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  27.   Based  on  the submissions made by Counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
     Revenue, the central question before us is:  whether the<\/p>\n
     abovementioned Section Note 2(b) excludes plastic  name<\/p>\n
     plates  from the scope of Section XVII?  Thus,  we  are<\/p>\n
     required to looking into the meaning and interpretation of<\/p>\n
     Section Note 2(b).  The Counsel for the Revenue contends<\/p>\n
     that since Note 2 to Section XV defines “parts of general<\/p>\n
     use” as including name plates, sign plates, number plates,<\/p>\n
     etc., their plastic equivalents [by virtue of Note 2(b)]<\/p>\n
     will also get excluded from the scope of Chapter 87.  Thus,<\/p>\n
     he submits that they ought to be classified under Chapter<\/p>\n
     39.<\/p>\n
  28.   We however find it difficult to accept this submission<\/p>\n
     in the light of the language used in Note 2(b).  Note 2(b)<\/p>\n
     excludes from the scope of Section XVII “Parts of general<\/p>\n
     use,  as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base metal<\/p>\n
     (section XV), or similar goods of plastics (Chapter 39)”.<\/p>\n
     What we have to examine is the scope of the last part of the<\/p>\n
     Note.  Admittedly, there are two ways of interpreting this<\/p>\n
     phrase.  The interpretation suggested by the Revenue is to<\/p>\n
     read  the exclusion of “similar goods of plastics”,  in<\/p>\n
     synchrony with the exclusion that applies to the goods of<\/p>\n
     base metal.  In this respect, he drew our attention to the<\/p>\n
     further explanation that is provided on Note 2(b), where<\/p>\n
     number plates are given as an example and it is further<\/p>\n
     provided that “such goods of base metals fall in Chapter 83,<\/p>\n
     and  similar  goods of plastics fall  in  Chapter  39”.<\/p>\n
     According to the Revenue, this makes it amply clear that the<\/p>\n
     “parts of general use” includes name plates of both, base<\/p>\n
     metal and plastic and therefore fall out of the scope of<\/p>\n
     Section XVII.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  29.   We are not impressed with this submission.  It is true<\/p>\n
     that on first blush, it appears that if the base metal name<\/p>\n
     plates  are excluded, so must similar plastic goods  be<\/p>\n
     excluded.  However, we do not think that this is the correct<\/p>\n
     position, primarily because of the reference made in Note<\/p>\n
     2(b) to Chapter 39.  Undoubtedly, name plates of base metal<\/p>\n
     stand excluded from the scope of Section XVII by virtue of<\/p>\n
     being “parts of general use” as defined and specifically<\/p>\n
     mentioned in Chapter XV.  Now, with respect to plastic name<\/p>\n
     plates, if the reference to Chapter 39 had not been made,<\/p>\n
     then there would be no controversy at all. In such a case,<\/p>\n
     all plastic products similar to those defined in Chapter XV<\/p>\n
     would be excluded, regardless of an omission to specifically<\/p>\n
     mention them within Chapter 39.  In other words, without any<\/p>\n
     reference to Chapter 39 in Note 2(b), the only control on<\/p>\n
     the meaning of “similar goods of plastics” would be the<\/p>\n
     description of goods included within Chapter XV.<\/p>\n
  30.   However, the minute a reference is made to Chapter 39,<\/p>\n
     it is the provisions in Chapter 39 that control the scope of<\/p>\n
     “similar goods of plastics”.  Thus, when Note 2(b) refers to<\/p>\n
     similar goods of plastics as in Chapter 39, it must  be<\/p>\n
     interpreted to mean similarly defined goods in Chapter 39.<\/p>\n
     And since no definition or reference exists in Chapter 39<\/p>\n
     regarding name plates, etc., we cannot find any exclusion<\/p>\n
     with respect to these goods from Chapter 87.  For example,<\/p>\n
     when the exclusion regarding base metal name plates is made,<\/p>\n
     it is so because there exist specific and detailed headings<\/p>\n
     in  that  Chapter.  But in the absence of such specific<\/p>\n
     headings  in  Chapter 39, we are unable to  accept  the<\/p>\n
     exclusion of the plastic name plates from Chapter 87 and<\/p>\n
     include it within a residuary provision in Chapter 39.<\/p>\n
  31.   Thus, we are of the opinion that the language in Note<\/p>\n
     2(b) cannot be interpreted to exclude plastic name plates<\/p>\n
     from the scope of Section XVII.\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
  32.    In conclusion, since plastic name plates are `parts<\/p>\n
     and accessories’ of motor vehicles and since they are not<\/p>\n
     excluded   from  the  Section  XVII,  the   appropriate<\/p>\n
     classification is under headings 87.08 and 87.14.<\/p>\n
  33.   For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
     There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007 Author: Bhan Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5345 of 2001 PETITIONER: M\/s Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/04\/2007 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & Dalveer Bhandari […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-26T05:16:18+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-26T05:16:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3973,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-26T05:16:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-26T05:16:18+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-26T05:16:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007"},"wordCount":3973,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007","name":"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-26T05:16:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-pragati-silicons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-26-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, … on 26 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/112025","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=112025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112025\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}