{"id":119794,"date":"2007-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-13T04:12:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-12T22:42:42","slug":"ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3139 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s Continental Foundation Joint Venture Sholding, Nathpa H.P.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCommissioner of Central Excise,Chandigarh-I\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; S.H. KAPADIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.3139 OF 2002<br \/>\n[With C.A. No.3504 of 2002, C.A. No.3336 of 2002]<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThese appeals involve identical question of law and are,<br \/>\ntherefore, disposed of by this common judgment. The<br \/>\ncontroversy relates to the financial year 1997-98.  Post 1997-<br \/>\n98 the tariff entry provides that the rate is nil.  The basic facts<br \/>\nare noted in the appeal filed by Continental Foundation Joint<br \/>\nVenture-the appellant in Civil Appeal No.3139 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe appellant M\/s Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (in<br \/>\nshort &#8216;NJPC&#8217;) is a Joint venture between the Government of<br \/>\nIndia and Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, set up for the purpose of<br \/>\nconstruction of a power-project between the towns of Nathpa-<br \/>\nJhakri in Himachal Pradesh known an Nathpa Jhakri Power<br \/>\nCorporation funded by the World Bank. The civil work relating<br \/>\nto the project was allotted to three construction companies viz.<br \/>\nM\/s Continental Foundation Joint Venture (in short &#8216;CFJV&#8217;),<br \/>\nM\/s Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture (in short &#8216;NJJV&#8217;) and M\/s<br \/>\nJai Prakash Hyundai Consortium, (in short &#8216;JPHC&#8217;). The<br \/>\nagreement was entered into by M\/s NJPC and the<br \/>\nconstruction companies to provide inter alia &#8216;mix concrete&#8217; for<br \/>\nexecution of various items of work under the contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh issued<br \/>\na show cause notice dated 20.1.1999 to all the above parties<br \/>\nalleging that the construction companies employed by M\/s<br \/>\nNJPC were manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete (in short &#8216;RMC&#8217;)<br \/>\non which no central excise duty is being paid. Since the said<br \/>\nRMC falls under Chapter Heading No.3824.20 of the Schedule<br \/>\nto the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short &#8216;Tariff Act&#8217;) and<br \/>\nis subject to Central Excise duty under Central Excise Act,<br \/>\n1944 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;), duty is payable. All the three parties<br \/>\nare adopting the same method of manufacture of RMC for<br \/>\nwhich the rock is blasted from the designated quarry of M\/s<br \/>\nNJPC. It is transported to the crusher and crushed to the<br \/>\nspecified sizes and specific quantity at the project site. Some<br \/>\naggregate, cement and sand are also produced from the<br \/>\ncrushing plant set up at the site. Some natura1 sand is also<br \/>\nused. The aggregate and sand are transported and stored in<br \/>\nbins adjacent to the automatic batching plant. The cement<br \/>\npurchased from the market is stored in the cement silons at<br \/>\nthe site. The batching plant is an automatic plant which<br \/>\nregulates and delivers the specified sizes and quantities of<br \/>\naggregate, sand and cement into the mixing drums through<br \/>\nthe built- in-conveyor. The admixture for water reduction or<br \/>\nair entraining is incorporated in the concrete as per the<br \/>\napproved mix design given by the NJPC. The whole process is<br \/>\nfully automatic and is electronically controlled. The concrete of<br \/>\napproved mix design and the specified quantity is<br \/>\nmanufactured in the batching plant strictly in accordance with<br \/>\nIS: 456-1978 as stipulated in the contract with M\/s NJPC. The<br \/>\nconcrete so produced is transported by transit mixers upto the<br \/>\nlocation of placement and is placed at the specified location by<br \/>\nconcrete pumps or placers before the setting time of concrete,<br \/>\nwhich varies depending upon the type of cement used. Noticee<br \/>\ncompanies are manufacturing RMC but with some motive,<br \/>\nthey are naming it as mixed concrete to evade the central<br \/>\nexcise duty. There is a difference between the process and<br \/>\nmethod of manufacture of RMC provided in the Bureau of<br \/>\nIndian Standards (in short &#8216;BIS&#8217;) literature under IS:<br \/>\n4926\/1976 and the Board&#8217;s letter No.368\/l\/98-CX dated<br \/>\n6.1.1998. In this Circular of the Board, the process of<br \/>\nmanufacture of RMC is spelt out and it is clarified that RMC is<br \/>\na dutiable product. The matter was referred to the BIS who<br \/>\nvide their letter dated 23.10.1998 reported that the query<br \/>\nraised by the department vide their letter dated 9.7.1998 was<br \/>\nconsidered by the Concrete Sub Committee and its views are<br \/>\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is agreed that in so far as the process<br \/>\nof manufacturing the concrete is involved, the<br \/>\nprocess described in the letter of Central<br \/>\nExcise is similar to the process given in<br \/>\nIS;4926 specification for &#8220;Ready Mix<br \/>\nConcrete'&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tConsidering the reply of the notices, the Commissioner of<br \/>\nCentral Excise, Chandigarh-I confirmed the amounts of duty<br \/>\nand also imposed penalty in terms of Rule 209A of the Central<br \/>\nExcise Rules, 1944 (in short the &#8216;Rules&#8217;).  One of the stands<br \/>\ntaken by the appellant was that the extended period of<br \/>\nlimitation under Section 11A of the Act was not available.<br \/>\nThere were doubts raised and, in fact, at different points of<br \/>\ntime, circulars have been issued.  This plea was turned down<br \/>\nby the adjudicating authority with the following observations:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Based on above discussions, it is evident that<br \/>\nMix Concrete manufactured and used at the<br \/>\nsite of construction is in fact Ready Mix<br \/>\nConcrete and M\/s NJPC alongwith three<br \/>\nconstruction companies have concealed its<br \/>\nnomenclature with an obvious intention to<br \/>\nescape the duty on the said Ready Mix<br \/>\nConcrete.  M\/s NJPC have apparently abetted<br \/>\nthe contravention of non payment of Duty,<br \/>\nthey are therefore, liable for penal action the<br \/>\nsaid abetment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn appeal, apart from the other challenges the plea<br \/>\nrelating to non-applicability of the extended period of<br \/>\nlimitation was also urged. The Tribunal did not accept the<br \/>\ncontention with the following observations:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;16. Another argument is about the time bar<br \/>\nof demands. It is contended that, in view of<br \/>\nthe Board Circular dated 6.1.1998, since they<br \/>\nwere making the concrete at site and as per<br \/>\nthe standards prescribed in IS: 456-1978,<br \/>\nthey were under a bonafide belief that what<br \/>\nthey were manufacturing was mix concrete<br \/>\nand not the RMC. The contention of bonafide<br \/>\nbelief is also advanced on their eligibility to<br \/>\nthe exemption under Notification No.4\/97-CE<br \/>\ndated 1.3.97. We find little force in this<br \/>\nsubmission. A specific entry was made in the<br \/>\nCentral Excise Tariff for RMC under Heading<br \/>\n3824.20 with effect from 1.3.1997. The<br \/>\nexemption under the notification was<br \/>\nprovided to mix concrete made at site and not<br \/>\nto the RMC. None of the appellants sought<br \/>\nany clarification from their jurisdictional<br \/>\ncentral excise authorities or obtained any lea1<br \/>\nopinion as to the exigibility of their product,<br \/>\nor its eligibility to the exemption under this<br \/>\nnotification. The Board Circular dated<br \/>\n6.1.1998 was issued much after the RMC was<br \/>\nbrought under the excise net. In the face of<br \/>\nthese facts, the plea of bonafide belief by the<br \/>\nappellants is not supported by the evidence<br \/>\non record. Another contention raised is that<br \/>\nthe appellants could not have had any<br \/>\nintention to evade payment of duty, since the<br \/>\ncontract between the applicants and the<br \/>\nPower Corporation specifically provided that<br \/>\nany additional cost that was incurred as a<br \/>\nresult of any change in legislature or States<br \/>\nstatutes, regulations or by laws would be paid<br \/>\nby the Power Corporation. It is contended<br \/>\nthat, where the excise duty is reimbursed by<br \/>\nthe buyer, there could not be any intention to<br \/>\nevade payment of duty. It is observed that no<br \/>\nsuch plea is raised before the adjudicating<br \/>\nauthority. The Power Corporation is also an<br \/>\nappellant in this case and there is no plea of<br \/>\nany such commitment on their behalf in their<br \/>\nappeal. There is no evidence that the stated<br \/>\nclause in the contract would bind the Power<br \/>\nCorporation to reimburse the appellants even<br \/>\nfor the duty liability fastened on to the<br \/>\nappellants on the ground of suppression and<br \/>\nmisrepresentation etc. and not on account of<br \/>\nany change in legislation, regulation or by<br \/>\nlaws. The plea of bonafide belief is, therefore,<br \/>\nrejected. The appellants are also claiming the<br \/>\nbenefit of modvat credit on the input material<br \/>\nbut this plea is also not raised before the<br \/>\noriginal authority. However, in the interest of<br \/>\njustice, they could be given an opportunity to<br \/>\nestablish their case before the original<br \/>\nauthority for eligibility to the modvat credit in<br \/>\nrespect of the duty paid on the input material<br \/>\nused in the manufacture of RMC with the<br \/>\ndocumentary proof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tSimilar view was expressed by the CEGAT in other<br \/>\nappeals which is the subject-matter in the other appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tMr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that there were various circulars<br \/>\noperating at different points of time. There was no clarity or<br \/>\nunanimity in the views expressed by the authorities<br \/>\nthemselves.  In fact, correctness of the judgment by CEGAT in<br \/>\nContinental Foundation Joint Venture&#8217;s case (supra) was<br \/>\ndoubted and the matter was referred to larger bench. In Chief<br \/>\nEngineer Ranjt Sagar Dam v. Commissioner of C.Ex.,<br \/>\nJalandhar (2006 (198) E.L.T. 503 (Tri.-LB) larger bench of the<br \/>\nTribunal has held that the view expressed in Continental<br \/>\nFoundation Joint Venture&#8217;s case (supra) was not the correct<br \/>\nview.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondents<br \/>\nsubmitted that the circulars dated 1.2.1996, 23.6.1997 and<br \/>\n6.1.1998 have no relevance and the judgment in Chief<br \/>\nEngineer Ranjt&#8217;s case (supra) does not reflect the correct<br \/>\nposition.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tWe are not really concerned with the other issues as<br \/>\naccording to us on the challenge to the extended period of<br \/>\nlimitation ground alone the appellants are bound to succeed.<br \/>\nSection 11A of the Act postulates suppression and, therefore,<br \/>\ninvolves in essence mens rea.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe expression &#8216;suppression&#8221; has been used in the<br \/>\nproviso to Section 11A of the Act accompanied by very strong<br \/>\nwords as &#8216;fraud&#8217; or &#8220;collusion&#8221; and, therefore, has to be<br \/>\nconstrued strictly.  Mere omission to give correct information<br \/>\nis not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the<br \/>\npayment of duty.  Suppression means failure to disclose full<br \/>\ninformation with the intent to evade payment of duty.  When<br \/>\nthe facts are known to both the parties, omission by one party<br \/>\nto do what he might have done would not render it<br \/>\nsuppression.  When the Revenue invokes the extended period<br \/>\nof limitation under Section 11-A the burden is cast upon it to<br \/>\nprove suppression of fact. An incorrect statement cannot be<br \/>\nequated with a willful misstatement. The latter implies making<br \/>\nof an incorrect statement with the knowledge that the<br \/>\nstatement was not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tFactual position goes to show the Revenue relied on the<br \/>\ncircular dated 23.5.1997 and dated 19.12.1997.  The circular<br \/>\ndated 6.1.1998 is the one on which appellant places reliance.<br \/>\nUndisputedly, CEGAT in Continental Foundation Joint<br \/>\nVenture case (supra) was held to be not correct in a<br \/>\nsubsequent larger Bench judgment. It is, therefore, clear that<br \/>\nthere was scope for entertaining doubt about the view to be<br \/>\ntaken.  The Tribunal apparently has not considered these<br \/>\naspects correctly.  Contrary to the factual position, the CEGAT<br \/>\nhas held that no plea was taken about there being no<br \/>\nintention to evade payment of duty as the same was to be<br \/>\nreimbursed by the buyer.  In fact such a plea was clearly<br \/>\ntaken.  The factual scenario clearly goes to show that there<br \/>\nwas scope for entertaining doubt, and taking a particular<br \/>\nstand which rules out application of Section 11A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tAs far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident<br \/>\nthat the intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So<br \/>\nfar as mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned,<br \/>\nthey are clearly qualified by the word &#8216;wilful&#8217;, preceding the<br \/>\nwords &#8220;mis-statement or suppression of facts&#8221; which means<br \/>\nwith intent to evade duty. The next set of words &#8216;contravention<br \/>\nof any of the provisions of this Act or Rules&#8217; are again qualified<br \/>\nby the immediately following words &#8216;with intent to evade<br \/>\npayment of duty.&#8217;  Therefore, there cannot be suppression or<br \/>\nmis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitute a<br \/>\npermissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section<br \/>\n11A.  Mis-statement of fact must be wilful.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThat being so, the adjudicating authorities were not<br \/>\njustified in raising the demand and CEGAT was not justified in<br \/>\ndismissing the appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tOn the ground of adjudication beyond the normal period<br \/>\nof limitation and non-availability of the extended period of<br \/>\nlimitation, the appeals are allowed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India M\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3139 of 2002 PETITIONER: M\/s Continental Foundation Joint Venture Sholding, Nathpa H.P. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise,Chandigarh-I DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/08\/2007 BENCH: Dr. [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007 - 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\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-12T22:42:42+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=\"10 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-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T22:42:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1998,\"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-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T22:42:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 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 Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007 - 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\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-12T22:42:42+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T22:42:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007"},"wordCount":1998,"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-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007","name":"M\/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T22:42:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-continental-foundation-joint-vs-commissioner-of-central-on-29-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Continental Foundation Joint &#8230; vs Commissioner Of Central &#8230; on 29 August, 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\/119794","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=119794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119794\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}