{"id":148116,"date":"1986-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2"},"modified":"2014-02-15T23:35:45","modified_gmt":"2014-02-15T18:05:45","slug":"goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2","title":{"rendered":"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 (10) ECC 178, 1986 ECR 218 Kerala, 1987 (32) ELT 565 Ker<\/div>\n
Author: V B Nambiar<\/div>\n
Bench: V Malimath, V B Nambiar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.<\/p>\n
1. These writ petitions raise common questions of law and are, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment. We shall briefly refer to the facts in one writ petition, O.P. No. 2641 of 1981 as the facts in others are practically similar.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The petitioner is a public limited Company manufacturing Copper fungicides and other industrial chemicals. These fungicides are used for prophylactic spraying against fungal diseases in coffee, rubber, tea, areca, cardamom estates and in field crops like paddy, cotton, chillies, turmeric tobacco, betel vine, etc. The petitioner imported “copper scrap” conforming to “Birth” variety as per NARI specifications, from Singapore, Middle East, United States and United Kingdom. They have been importing this scrap from 1956 onwards and it is said that the petitioner Company requires about 1,000 Metric Tonnes per year. It is not disputed that the “copper scrap” imported consisted of scrap derived from old, used and condemned,  defective,  non-standard,  wires,  which  had  only  its  value  in its metal content. The department did not collect any additional customs duty in respect of the “copper scrap” imported by the petitioner from 1956 till 1979. In March, 1979, the respondent, the Assistant Collector of Customs began demanding a duty of 8% under entry 68 of the Central Excise  Tariff  Act.  The  petitioner  objected  to  this  levy.  However,  as they required these materials urgently for their factory, they cleared the goods after execution of a bond for duty at 8% under protest. In a few cases they were also allowed to clear the goods without levy of any additional or countervailing duty and without any objection from he authorities. Thus, it is said that the petitioner cleared without levy of additional duty in 14 instances from 24-2-1979 to 13-7-1979. Thereafter, purporting to act under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the respondent informed the petitioner by notice dated 20-11-1979 that the goods so cleared are leviable to countervailing duty under entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff at 8% ad valorem and as this duty was not paid there was short levy and therefore required the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why the amount specified in the notice should not be paid. The petitioner filed his objections dated 23-11-1979 stating that no duty was leviable on “copper scrap” as it was not an item which fell within Tariff entry 68. It was also contended that “copper scrap” was not liable to any excise and additional customs duty and that in any case, the proceedings were time barred. They also prayed for a personal hearing and stated that they were prepared to produce documentary evidence in support of  their contentions. There was no enquiry with notice to the petitioner; but an order was passed in  May,  1981, in which it was stated that the goods  imported  were  leviable  to  countervailing  duty  under  Entry  26A(1)at Rs.  3,000\/- per Metric Tonne. However, “the enforcement was restricted to the amount already demanded” namely, under entry 68.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  petitioner,  therefore,  filed  this  writ  petition  challenging the demand so made. It is contended that “copper scrap” was not exigible to  customs  duty  under  Tariff  entry  26A,  that  the  procedure  adopted violated the principles of natural justice and that in view of the definite stand taken by  the  higher authorities including the Government of India, the   alternate  remedy available was ineffective and therefore the jurisdiction under Article 226 has to be invoked.\n<\/p>\n
4. The main question and possibly the only question that would arise for determination is whether “copper scrap” is copper in crude form falling within Tariff entry 26A.\n<\/p>\n
5. The counter affidavit reiterated the stand already taken that the items imported were liable to duty under Tariff entry 26A(1) and as a pre-assessment notice was admittedly issued there was no violation of any principle of natural justice. It was asserted that the “copper scrap” was “copper in crude form” and thus satisfied the requirement of Tariff Item 26A. It was admitted that there was conflict of opinion among the Customs and the Central Excise Officers as to whether excise duty was payable on “copper scrap”. Prior to 1-3-1975, it was assumed that no excise duty was payable on “copper scrap”. After this date, with the insertion of a new entry 68, the residuary entry, divergent views with still entertained as to whether “copper scrap” would come within this entry also. This point was discussed in the South Zone Tariff Conference held at Madras on 10th May, 1979, in the 13th North Zone Conference held at Jaipur in October, 1980, the 10th and 11th East Regional Conference held at Calcutta in December 1980 and January 1981. Divergent views were expressed and eventually the Ministry of Law was inclined to take the view that “copper scrap is copper in crude form”. Subsequently the 1981 amendment of the Finance Act set at rest all conflict by inserting a new specific provision “copper scrap and waste”. This, it is said, is clarificatory or declaratory in nature and hence copper scrap imported by the petitioner was rightly assessed under entry 26A though the actual demand was restricted to the lesser claim under entry 68. It is, therefore, said that the petitioner only stands to gain by the impugned orders and no cause to issue a writ has been made out.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The tariff entries in the Central Excise Act describe the classes of goods which attract duty and specify the  rates at which the tax has to be levied. It is the duty of the assessing authority, and it is also his primary duty to determine whether the goods in question would fall under one  tariff  entry  or  another.  We  would  not  have,  therefore,  considered this aspect in these writ proceedings and would have relegated the parties to  agitate  this  question  before  the  authorities  under  the  Act,  but  for the fact that it is admitted before us that the Ministry of Law has taken a  decision  that  “copper  scrap”  is  copper  in  crude  form  falling  within entry 26A and the department has thus taken the same view consistently thereafter.  If  so,  a  direction  now  to  the  same  authorities would  be  a futile exercise.  Moreover, the counsel  for the petitioner and the Central Government Pleader submitted that this question may be decided in these proceedings  itself  so  that  at  least,  at  this  distance  of  time,  there  is some finality to these problems which arose as early as 1979.\n<\/p>\n
7.   We,  therefore,  propose  to  decide  this  limited  question  as  to whether  “copper  scrap”  is copper  in crude  form  exigible  to  duty  under Tariff  entry  26A  of the Act and leave all other questions to be decided by  the  authorities  constituted  under  the  Act.  It  is  necessary  for  this purpose  to  refer  to  the  relevant  statutory  provisions  and  also  to  take notice of the legislative history.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  Customs  Act  of  1962  defines  in  Section  2(15)  “duty”  to mean  a  duty  of  customs  leviable  under  the  Act.  Section  12(1)  of  the Act provided for  levy  of  certain  duties and fixed  the rates as may be specified  under  the  Customs  Tariff  Act,  1975 or  under  any  other  law, for  the  time  being  in  force.  Section 2 of the Tariff  Act provided that the  rates at which duties of Customs shall be levied under the Customs Act are specified in the first and second schedule.\n<\/p>\n
9.   There  is  a  levy  of  additional  duty  equal  to  excise duty under Section 3 of  the Act. Section 3(1)  of  the Customs Tariff Act,  1975 and the  Explanation  to  the  section,  relevant  for  our  purpose  is  extracted below :-\n<\/p>\n
“3.  Levy  of  additional  duty  equal  to  excise  duty.  –  (1)  Any article  which  is  imported  into  India  shall,  in  addition,  be  liable  to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall be so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation. – In this section, the expression “the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India” means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India or, if a like article is not so produced or manufactured, which would be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs and where such duty is leviable at different rates, the highest duty”.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The  position,  therefore,  is  that  customs  duty  is  levied  under the  Customs  Act,  Section  12  of  that  Act  is  the charging section when the statutory liability to customs duty is imposed, when import or export is  made  the  taxable  event  and  the  rate of  levy  is  also  indicated.  The rate  is  prescribed  under the  Tariff Act. Section 2 of the Tariff Act is thus  not  an  independent  charging  section.  And  Section  3  provides  for an enhancement of the duty, “a supplementary levy” and enables imposition of  an  additional  duty.  This  statutory  construction  has  the  full  support of the Supreme Court in the decision in Khandelwal Metal & Engg. Works v. Union  of  India, AIR<\/a>  1985 S.C.  1211, wherein it is held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“…We  are  unable  to  accept  the  argument  of  the  appellants that Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act is an independent charging section or that, the ‘additional duty’ which it speaks of is not a duty of customs but is a countervailing duty”.\n<\/p>\n
“…The levy specified in 3(1) of the Tariff Act is a supplementary levy, in enhancement of the levy charged by 12 of the Customs Act and with a different base constituting the measure of the impost. In other words, the scheme embodied in Section 12 is amplified by what is provided in Section 3(1). The Customs duty charged under Section 12 is extended by an additional duty confined to imported articles in the measure set forth in Section 3(1). Thus, the additional duty which is mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act is not in the nature of countervailing duty”.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Under  Section  3  of  the  Tariff  Act,  the  import  of  goods  into India  attracts  not  only  the  customs  duty  leviable  under  Section  2  but also  to an additional  duty equal to “the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India”.\n<\/p>\n
12.  As  the  quantum  of  additional  customs  duty  is  geared  to  the excise  duty  for  the  time  being  leviable  on  a  like  article  produced  or manufactured in India, it is necessary to refer to the excise duty leviable under the Central  Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Act I of  1944), for short the  Act.  The  description  of  goods  and  the  rate of  duty  are  set  forth in the first schedule of the Act. The schedule was amended from time to time by the various Finance Acts.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Section 13 of the Finance  Act  14  of  1961  inserted  Item  26A with effect from 1-4-1961 reading thus :-\n<\/p>\n
  “26A.  Copper  and  copper alloys containing
\n       not less than fifty per cent by weight
\n       of copper –\n<\/p>\n
(1)   Manufactures,  the  following,  namely,       Three hundred    \n      plates, sheets, circles, strips and foils     rupees per metric \n      in any form or size.                          tonne. \n(2)   Pipes and tubes rupees per metric tonne.      Ten per cent ad \n                                                    valorem.\"\n\n \n\n14.  Item  26A(1) and (2) were substituted with effect from 29-4-1962 under the Finance Act 20 of 1962 as follows :-\n  \"(1) In any crude form including ingots, bars,        One hundred ru-\n     blocks, slabs, billets, shots and pillets.       pees per metric\n                                                      tonne.\n(2) Manufactures, the following namely, plates,       Three hundred\n    sheets, circles, strips and foils in any          rupees per metric\n    form or size.                                     tonne.\n                          XXX                               XXX\n\n \n\n15.  Item 26A as it stood in 1979 read thus :-\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------\nTariff            Description of goods            Rate of duty \nItem No.                                          Basic \n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n(1)                       (2)                        (3)\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n26A      Copper and copper alloys containing\n         not less than fifty per cent by weight \n         of copper\n    (1)  In any crude form including ingots,      Rs.  4,000\/-  per\n         bars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots      Metric Tonne.\n         and pellets\n         (a) Wire bars, wire rods and cast-       Rs.  4,000\/-  per\n             ings, not otherwise specified        Metric Tonne.\n    (2)  Manufactures, the following name-  \n         ly,  plates, sheets, circles, strips     Rs.  4,500\/-  per\n         and foils in any form or size            Metric Tonne.\n    (3)  Pipes and tubes                          20 per cent ad \n                                                  valorem\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n \n\n16.  Finance Act 16 of 1981 inserted 1(b) to  Item 26A with effect from\n1-4-1981 reading thus :-\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \nTariff      Description of goods        Rate of duty Basic\nItem No.                                Basic \n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n(1)       (2)              (3)\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n26A     Copper             \nxxx       xxx             xxx\n(1b)     Waste and scrap                Rs. five thousand\n                                        six  hundred  per \n                                        Metric tonne.\nxxx      xxx              xxx \n      Explanation II : \"Waste and scrap\" \n      means waste and scrap of copper\n      fit only for the recovery of metal \n      or for use in the manufacture of \n      chemicals, but does not include \n      slag, dross, scalings, ash and other \n      cuprous residues.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n
17.  Dispute  in  this  case  is  for  the  period  prior  to  1-4-1981  when there was no specific item as “copper scrap” or copper waste in the tariff entries.  There  is  no  dispute  thus  regarding  the  import  of  copper  scrap after  1-4-1981. If copper scrap was copper in crude form, it was exigible to  excise  duty  from  1962  and  thus  attracted  additional  customs  duty as well. We shall, therefore, proceed to consider this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
18.  According to New Webster’s Dictionary, scrap is “material which has been manufactured, used and discarded as being fit only for reworking : as, scraps of iron.”\n<\/p>\n
19.  According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, scrap is a “remnant;  a  fragmentary  portion;  Remnants  of  metal  produced  in  cutting up or casting-scrap iron”.\n<\/p>\n
20.  According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, scrap means “small  pieces, cuttings, or chips of stock removed1 in the process of making any product; manufactured articles or parts rejected for imperfection  or  discarded  because of  excessive  wear  or  lack  of  demand  and useful only as raw material for reprocessing (metal scrap – rubber scrap)”.\n<\/p>\n
21.  Encyclopedia  Americana,   1970  International  Edition,  Vol.  7, page 760 describes the sources of copper thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“…The  primary  sources  of  copper for the mining industry are the mineral copper sulfides (chalcocite, chalcopyrite, bornite), oxides (such as cuprite), and to a lesser extent carbonates (malachite, azurite) that are found in igneous rock”.\n<\/p>\n
“Another important source of copper is secondary copper, or copper obtained from scrap material. This refers not only to material obtained from reclaimed articles but also to such by-products of copper production as “trimmings”, “sweepings”, and “drosses”.”\n<\/p>\n
22.  On  ‘brass  scrap’, the Supreme  Court  observed  in  Khandelwal Metal  &  Engg.  Works v. Union of India AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1211 thus :-\n<\/p>\n
 “…As stated above, damaged goods of brass, which are compendiously called ‘brass scrap’, can come into existence during the process of manufacturing brass articles and such brass scrap has an established market in India….”\n<\/p>\n
23.  On  the  source  of  scrap  and  its  utilisation  in  manufacture,  the counter affidavit of the officer states thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“It is not disputed by the petitioner that what is imported is copper in the form of scrap and that it was imported as raw material. The only question therefore is whether the scrap in question is copper in a crude form. The expression ‘crude’ according to Black’s Law Dictionary is a very flexible term depending largely on the context. It may mean inter alia “in normal state, raw, unrefined, not artificially altered, unfinished”. It is submitted that copper scrap is certainly copper in a raw form. The expression ‘raw’ only signifies something from which a final product is made, not necessarily something in its natural state. This is the meaning that the term ‘raw’ bears when used in the expression ‘raw material’. It is submitted that in the context of the admission of the petitioner himself that the copper scrap has been imported as raw material for the manufacture of some chemical, it is clear that the copper scrap in question is copper in a raw form and not in a finished form. Copper in raw form is copper in crude form, xxx xxx. As has already been submitted, it seems to have been assumed prior to the introduction of item 68 that copper scrap was not leviable to Central Excise duty. It is also submitted that even on the averments contained in the Original Petition, the scrap imported by the petitioner has lost its identity as copper wire and that it could not be viewed only as a raw material in the place of copper. Even according to the petitioner its value is solely on account of the face that it happens to be the metal “copper”.”\n<\/p>\n
“If at a given moment the article could only be used as raw-material for the manufacture of other items and the article has lost all commercial identity as any other article than the metal called Copper, it could properly be called as copper in crude form. The article is not in a refined form. Its previous identity as wire or as any other article has been totally lost and its only identity now is as Copper. The contention that copper which once was brought upon could never thereafter become copper in crude form is also unsustainable in law’.\n<\/p>\n
“The contention of the petitioner that the description “crude form” can be given to a material only in the shape in which it occurs in nature is not entirely accurate. Of course, an article which retains its shape in which it occurs in nature could certainly be stated to be in crude form. Even according to the petitioner, the term “crude form” would apply even when the Copper is put in the first commercial forms in which the material is manufactured. If copper could be called to be in “crude form” after it is melted and cast, there is no reason why it could not said to be in crude form when it is fit to be used only for the same purposes for which it could be put when it is converted to first commercial forms. Copper in the first commercial forms could only be used as a raw material for the manufacture of various articles. And it is in this sense that it could be called as copper in crude form. On parity of reasoning, copper scrap which is fit only to be used as a raw material could also be called as copper in crude form.”\n<\/p>\n
“…It is not correct to say that copper scrap is only a waste. Copper scrap is a very valuable item which has got a commercial identity and which is purchased and sold in very large quantities because of its use as a raw material for the production of a variety of articles and chemicals…. As has already been submitted the question is not whether Copper Scrap is a manufactured item or not. Copper scrap may be produced either in the course of a manufacturing process or by some other process but the fact remains that an article known to trade is produced by some process or other and on such article coming into existence, it is leviable to duty”.\n<\/p>\n
“Copper Scrap can come into existence as waste when other articles like wire rods, castings etc. are manufactured with copper. Copper scrap can also come into existence on vessels, containers, castings, wires and other manufactured articles of copper became nusable and such articles got condemned. However, the important fact is that the scrap which come into existence in either of the above mentioned ways, is imported into the country solely for the purpose of being used as the raw material of copper in the manufacture of other articles and chemicals…. The identity of the metal ailed copper is the only reason for the import of the articles in question into the country. The petitioner himself admits that what is imported is to serve as the raw material i.e. copper in the manufacture of various chemicals…..  Whatever may be the processes to which the copper in question might have been subjected, the fact remains that what has been imported into the country are pieces of the metal copper  in  crude  form….  Even  assuming  that  this  scrap  imported by the petitioner consists of scrap derived from old, used and condemned defective non-standard wires and accumulates generated in engineering and electrical industries, the article would still be dutiable under Entry 26A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. Even according to the petitioner, the article becomes identifiable as scrap when a copper wire is condemned and is held to have only the value of its metal content”.\n<\/p>\n
24. With this background and after giving our serious consideration to all the aspects highlighted before us at the time of arguments, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that “copper scrap” is not copper in crude form and was not liable to excise duty or additional customs duty prior to 1-4-1981. Our reasons are many.\n<\/p>\n
25.  Taxability postulates the  unerring element of  certainty  and the taxing event can never be left in doubt. The fiscal legislation has therefore to  declare  and  describe  the  dutiable  goods in clear unmistakable terms. These goods are normally understood in its popular sense or as they are known  in  common  parlance.  Outside  this  sphere,  the  taxing statute will have  to  provide for identifiable standards or tests for reasonably distinguishing  one  item  from  another.  These  principles  have  been  laid  down by the Supreme Court  in Union of India v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.<\/a> 1975 Cen-Cus 62C  S.C. thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“…A particular type of strip may according to certain definitions be skelp and according to others not skelp. This, however, cannot be permitted in a fiscal legislation which by all standards should adopt a clear definition of an excisable item which is incapable of giving rise to a confounding controversy as in this case unless the …matter is beyond doubt in view of the popular meaning or meaning ascribed  in  the  term  in  commercial  parlance….  It  is only  when a taxing law provides for a clear and unequivocal test for determination as to whether a particular product would fall under strip or skelp it may be possible for the authorities to address itself to the evidence submitted by the parties in order to come to a decision on the basis of the test. This is, however, not possible in this case in view of the fact that there is no identifiable standard. The best way is to define the product for the purpose of excise duty in appropriate terms demarcating clearly the distinction between the two terms.\n<\/p>\n
The absence of any identifiable standard would, therefore, naturally give rise to the scope for arbitrary assessment at the hands of different authorities”.\n<\/p>\n
26.  In  the  present  case,  the  Act  described  the  dutiable  item  as “copper  in  crude  form”.  It  was a  vague  description  which gave  rise  to sharp differences of opinion in the Department. Discussion at various levels and at conferences held in several regions could not reach any decision among the officers themselves. In fact, the Appellate Collector of Bombay and Calcutta held in favour of the assessees and against the department. There was “confounding controversy” as to whether “copper scrap” was dutiable or not. There was no identifiable standard to distinguish “copper in crude form”. There was scope for arbitrary assessment at the hands of different authorities. The law did not provide for- any clear and unequivocal test to determine whether the product was copper in crude form or whether “scrap is copper in crude form”. The benefit of doubt in such cases has to be in favour of the assessee. There is thus no necessity to strain the language and strive to sight a taxable entry and thus decide that copper scrap is copper in crude form.\n<\/p>\n
27.  It is an admitted fact that the Department did not impose duty on copper scrap from  1962 when copper in crude form was dutiable under item  26A(1),  till  1981  when a specific new  item “waste and scrap”  was inserted  as  item  26A(b).  If  for  nineteen  years,  the  Department  thought that  copper  scrap  was  not  dutiable,  there  is  no  reason  why  this  court, now, with the materials available should hold that copper scrap was dutiable from  29-4-1962  when,  for  the  first  time copper in any  crude form  was included as an item.\n<\/p>\n
28.  The  fact  that  the  respondent  was  not  sure  about  the  taxable item  is clear from the fact that while the preassessment notice referred to the residuary entry, item 68, the assessment order was made under entry 26A(1). At the preassessment stage, the department thus proposed to assess only at the lower rate of 8% fixed under the residuary entry. They had no intention to assess at the higher rate under entry 26A(1). But what is surprising is that when the assessment was made under entry 26A(1), and the petitioner was liable to pay at the higher rate at Rs. 4,000\/- per metric tonne, the respondent has shown kindness and consideration when the amount was reduced and restricted to the amount required to be paid only under entry 68. The averments in the counter affidavit is revealing :-\n<\/p>\n
 “The total amount of duty payable under Tariff Item 26A(1) was Rs. 2,70,073.50. The special Excise duty payable was Rs. 13,503.67. The difference actually demanded from the petitioner under Ext. P2 being only Rs. 1,89,775.70 the demand under Ext. If has been restricted to the amount shown in Ext. P2. Thus the petitioner is actually saving a sum of Rs. 93,801.47 on the basis of the error in Ext. P2 in citing item 68 rather than item 26A(1).”\n<\/p>\n
Then the goods are exigible to duty under a particular entry, the department is bound to levy under that entry and there is no scope to show any favoured treatment to any assessee including the petitioner. It is thus clear that whatever be the attempt, in effect the department has assessed in these cases only under entry 68 on the ground that copper scrap does not fall under entry 26A(1).\n<\/p>\n
29.  The Government had issued a trade notice (Ext. R1) on 17-10-1967. We shall extract the relevant portions :-\n<\/p>\n
 “Doubts have, however, been expressed whether articles of copper and copper alloys which are neither the manufacture (specifically enumerated in item 26A(2) nor pipes and tubes covered by them 26A(3) and are, the same time, not in any crude form would be liable to pay Central Excise duty. Though in the case of indigenous production, articles of the type would have paid the crude stage duty under item 26A(1), the question arises about the liability of countervailing duty in respect of such articles. The whole question has been carefully examined in consultation with the Directorate General of Technical Development and the Ministry of Law. The D.G.T.D. have confirmed that the words ‘ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots and pellets’ as used in sub-item (1) of Item No. 26A of the Central Excise Tariff, refer in the metallurgical sense, to be crude form only. It is accordingly clarified that the governing factor to determine the liability of any particular articles to pay Central Excise duty under item 26A(1) in that it should be in crude form i.e. all unwrought forms which have not been subjected to mechanical working such as hot working, cold working, rolling, forging, extruding, piercing and drawing, and that the articles, even though known in the trade by the name of bar or ‘rod’, if precision-machined or rolled\/drawn extruded to certain specifications with close tolerances, shall not be deemed to be covered by the said sub-item. Similarly slotted, drilled or otherwise worked bars which can easily be distinguished from ‘bars in crude form’ or are recognisable as components\/parts of machinery or finished products shall not attract Central Excise ‘duty under the said item 26A(1). Therefore, no countervailing duty on such imported articles becomes chargeable.”\n<\/p>\n
Crude form was described as all “unwrought forms which have not been subjected to mechanical working such as hot working, cold working, rolling, forging, extruding, piercing and drawing”. Even if this administrative clarification can be pressed into service to understand the scope of a taxable entry, it seems to be clear that the copper scrap is not in wrought unwrought form. The scrap imported was only the remnant and waste in the manufacturing process and could not be said to be in unwrought form, without being ‘worked’.\n<\/p>\n
30.  It is also significant to note that whenever the legislature thought that  scrap  should  be  an  item  to  be  taxed, it said so in express terms. Thus as early as  1964, so far as the entry regarding iron was concerned, it  stated “iron  in  any crude form including scrap iron”.  In the Schedule to  the  Customs  Tariff  Act,  Copper  and articles thereof  are  mentioned Chapter  I of  the First Schedule under the Heading 74.01.02 thus :-\n<\/p>\n
 “Copper matte : unwrought copper (refined or not); Copper waste and scrap; master alloys”.\n<\/p>\n
The duty on scrap under Section 2 of the Tariff Act is not in challenge. It is only the additional duty claimed under Section 3 that is questioned. It is for that purpose the entries in the Excises and Salt Act, 1944, are referred; and in that Act, scrap was omitted. The legislature was aware of the existence of copper scrap. The legislature included copper scrap in the relevant entries whenever it thought it was liable to duty. Non-inclusion of the words “scrap and waste” in item 26A(1) itself indicated that these items were not intended to be treated as dutiable till those words were inserted.\n<\/p>\n
31.  As stated already, scrap and waste were expressly included only by the  1981 amendment to be effective after  1-4-1981. It was contended by the Central Government Pleader that this amendment was only clarificatory or declaratory in character and he relied on a Budget speech made by the Hon’ble Minister for Finance in 1981 thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“The other major area where rationalisation of the tariff entries has been proposed, is in regard to non-ferrous metals under the respective entries in the Central Excise Tariff. There has been considerable debate and dispute on the question of assessment of waste and scrap of these metals. To set this at rest, it is proposed to specifically cover waste and scrap of these metals under the respective tariff entries.”\n<\/p>\n
Whatever be the use to which the speech of a Minister can be put, to understand the true meaning of the specific provisions in a statute, the speech in the instant case does not expressly or impliedly state that the amendment was clarificatory. The speech refers not to doubts expressed earlier; but to debates which ensued. The counter affidavit stated thus :-\n<\/p>\n
 “It is significant that the question whether copper scrap was dutiable under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 26A(1) or under Item No. 68 was a point on which divergent views were being expressed not only by different assessing authorities but also in various conferences where the issue was debated in depth. Having regard to the opinion expressed by the Law Ministry, the legislature itself has, by amending item 26A by the Finance Act, 1981, specifically included copper scrap within the entry.”\n<\/p>\n
Under the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention that the amendment was clarificatory or declaratory of the existing law. It stopped a debate for the future when in 1981, scrap and waste were expressly included as taxable item in entry 26A(1b).\n<\/p>\n
32.  Copper scrap  is not  copper ore.  It is not copper in its natural or raw state. It may come into existence during the process of manufacture or  it  may  be  material  defective,  condemned  and  discarded.  It  may  be manufactured  articles  or  parts  rejected  because  of  excessive  wear.  It may  be  used  for  reprocessing  or  for  reworking.  The  metal  content  in scrap  can  be the secondary source for copper.  With these characteristic features, it is idle to contend that copper scrap has no separate identity. Scrap in common parlance is distinct from the crude raw material. Copper in  crude  form  as  described  in  item  28A(1)  before  1-4-1981  cannot thus include copper scrap or waste.\n<\/p>\n
33.  We,  therefore,  hold  that  the  respondent  committed  a  patent error and in fact, exercised a jurisdiction not vested in law when it assessed the petitioner for additional duty under entry 26A(1) of the Central Excises and  Salt  Act,  1944.  Copper  scrap  was  not  liable  to  additional  customs duty  under  entry  26A(1)  till  1-4-1981.  The  assessment  made  relying  on this entry cannot be sustained. The orders so made, Ext. P4 in O.P. Nos. 2641,  2642,  2643,  2644,  2645,  2646,  2647,  2648,  2649,  2650,  2651,  2652, 2653, and 2656 of  1981, the bills, Ext. PI in O.P. Nos. 2345, 2367, 2368, 2369,  2370,  2371,  2377,  2378,  2379,  2799,  2800,  2801,  3169  and  3530 of  1981,  are  therefore  quashed.  It  is,  however,  open  to  the  respondent to  consider  the  petitioners’  liability  to  be  assessed  under  item  68  of the  Act.  For  that  purpose,  the  respondent  will  give  a personal  hearing to  the  petitioners  in  these  Original  Petitions,  if  they  so  require,  and decide,  with  reference to the statutory provisions,  the exemption notifications,  the question of bar of  limitation and all other relevant factors, whether  the  petitioners were  liable to pay duty under that item  68 for the relevant periods.\n<\/p>\n
The Original Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 (10) ECC 178, 1986 ECR 218 Kerala, 1987 (32) ELT 565 Ker Author: V B Nambiar Bench: V Malimath, V B Nambiar JUDGMENT V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. These writ petitions raise common questions of […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGoods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 - 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\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\" \/>\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=\"1986-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-15T18:05:45+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-15T18:05:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\"},\"wordCount\":5238,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\",\"name\":\"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-15T18:05:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 - 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\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-15T18:05:45+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986","datePublished":"1986-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-15T18:05:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2"},"wordCount":5238,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2","name":"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-15T18:05:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goods-agro-chemicals-and-ors-vs-assistant-collector-of-customs-on-19-august-1986-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Goods Agro Chemicals And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs on 19 August, 1986"}]},{"@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\/148116","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=148116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}