{"id":148122,"date":"2010-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-10T04:59:44","modified_gmt":"2015-05-09T23:29:44","slug":"commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/589\/2009\t 1\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 589 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS SURAT-II - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMITTAL\nTEX O FAB PVT LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave
\nto amend as per the draft amendment.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nCommissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II has filed this
\nTax Appeal under Section  35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
\nproposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law for
\ndetermination and consideration of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 (A)\tWhether
\nSection 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inserted by Finance Act,
\n1996 with intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who
\nevaded payment of tax should be read to contain mens rea as essential
\ningredient and whether there is a scope for levying penalty below the
\nprescribed minimum?\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tWhether
\nin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
\ncommitted substantial error of law in rejecting appeal of the revenue
\n?\n<\/p>\n
3.\tHeard
\nMr.R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
\nRevenue and perused the orders passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAt
\nthe time of hearing of Tax Appeal, Mr.Oza has reframed the
\nsubstantial questions of law, which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 (a)\tWhether
\nor not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to section 11AC of
\nthe Central Excise Act, 1944 can be extended to such person who has
\nnot paid amount of interest and penalty determined by the
\nadjudicating authority within time limit prescribed under 1st
\nand 2nd proviso to section 11AB of the Central Excise Act,
\n1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tWhether
\nor not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to section 11AC of
\nthe Central Excise Act, 1944 can be extended to such person who has
\npaid, before issuance of show cause notice only duty determined by
\nthe adjudicating authority payable under section 11A(2) of the
\nCentral Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tWhether
\nthe adjudicating authority is statutory obliged to set out in his
\norder the availability of benefit of reduced penalty prescribed under
\nproviso to section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to give
\noption to such person liable for penalty under section 11AC of the
\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tWhether
\nin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified
\nand has committed substantial error of law in placing reliance on the
\ndecision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CCE v.
\nMalbro Appliances P. Ltd. reported in 2007(79) RLT 109
\n(Del)\/2007208)ELT 503 (Delhi) and in case of K.P. Pouches P. Ltd.,
\nreported in 208(85) RLT (483)(Delhi)\/2008(228) ELT 31 (Del) ?\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tWhether
\nthe impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be an order in
\naccordance with law ?\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tWhether
\nin the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has committed
\nsubstantial error of law in reducing penalty to 25% of the duty
\namount on the respondent ?\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tWhether
\nSection 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inserted by Finance Act,
\n1996 with intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who
\nevaded payable of tax should be read to contain mens rea as an
\nessential ingredient and whether there is a scope for levying penalty
\nbelow the prescribed minimum ?\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tWhether
\nin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
\ncommitted substantial error of law in rejecting appeal of the revenue
\nand confirming order of the appellate commissioner to reduce penalty
\nimposed on the respondent from Rs.2,34,487\/- – to Rs.75,000\/- on the
\nground that duty has been paid prior to issue of show cause notice ?\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMr.Oza
\nhas submitted that the Tribunal has not recorded any reasons setting
\nout facts of the respondent and has mechanically passed order
\nextending benefit of reduced penalty to the respondent. He further
\nsubmitted that the team of Central Excise Officers had carried search
\nof the respondent’s premises on 13.01.1997 and detected evasion of
\nCentral Excise duty payable by the respondent as on the date of the
\nsaid search. The show cause notice was issued on 23.11.2000. The
\nadjudicating authority has passed order dated 28.03.2002 confirming
\ndemand made in the show cause notice and directed recovery of duty of
\nRs.2,34,867\/- under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
\nand imposed penalty of Rs.2,34,867\/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the
\nCentral Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central
\nExcise Act, 1944. The respondent preferred appeal before the
\nAppellate Commissioner and the Appellate Commissioner by his order
\ndated 14.09.2006 directed to reduce penalty payable by the respondent
\nfrom Rs.2,34,867\/- to Rs.75,000\/-. Therefore, the appellant filed
\nappeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated
\n18.08.2008 dismissed appeal of the appellant by placing reliance on
\nthe decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Malbro Appliances as
\nwell as in the case of M\/s.K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tMr.Oza
\nhas further submitted that the Appellate Commissioner has passed
\norder reducing penalty on the basis of contention of the respondent
\nthat the duty has been paid prior to issuance of show cause notice.
\nHowever, there is nothing on record to show the date on which the
\nrespondent has made payment of duty. In any case of the matter,
\nadmittedly the respondent has not paid interest and penalty in
\ncompliance with conditions stipulated in   1st and 2nd
\nproviso to section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and
\ntherefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tMr.Oza
\nfurther submitted that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the
\ncase of  K. P. Pouches
\n(P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del),
\ncannot be applied to the case of the respondent inasmuch as in the
\ncase of  K.P.\n<\/p>\n
Pouches (P) Ltd., (Supra)
\nthe adjudicating authority has not ordered recovery of interest
\nunder Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because in the
\nsaid case the assessee had deposited total amount of duty payable
\nunder Section 11A(2) of the Act on the date of detection of evasion
\nof duty itself. He has further submitted that the decision in the
\ncase of  Malbro
\nAppliances P. Ltd., reported in 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Del),
\nalso cannot be applied because the facts of the case on hand are not
\nidentical to the facts of the case of the assessee in the  Malbro
\nAppliances P. Ltd., (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
On the contrary, in view of settled proposition laid down by the
\nPunjab and Haryana Court in the case of  Machino
\nMontell (I) Ltd., reported in 2006(4) STR 177 (P & H)
\nas well as judgments of the Apex Court in the case of  Rajasthan
\nSpinning & Weaving Mills, reported in 2009(238) ELT 3 (SC),
\nDharmendra Textile Processors, reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC),
\nand
\ndecisions of the Tribunal in the case of  Jawala
\nSteels Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (238) ELT 694 (Tri   Kolkata),
\nand   Ponneri
\nSteel Industries, reported in 2009 (238) ELT 295 (Tri   Chennai)
\nand such other cases, the Tribunal was required to allow department
\nto levy penalty on the respondent for the amount equivalent to his
\nduty liability and pass order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tMr.Oza
\n\thas further submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is in
\n\tdisregard of the law laid down by this Court in Tax Appeal No.140 of
\n\t2008 and Special Civil Application No.22931 of 2005 and such other
\n\tjudgments, which obligate upon the Tribunal to record cogent reasons
\n\tin support of conclusion arrived at by him in passing the final
\n\torder. In support
\n\tof this submission Mr.Oza also relied on the following decisions  (I)
\n\tCoats Viyella India Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004
\n\t(133) ELT 229 (SC) (ii) TATA Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.,
\n\tVs. Collector of Central Excise, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC) (iii)
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise Vs. Wimco Ltd., 2007 (217) ELT 3 (SC)\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Commissioner of Central Exicse Vs. GTC Industries Ltd., 2008
\n\t(228) 505 (SC) (v) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Srikumar
\n\tAgencies 2008 (232) 577 (SC) (vi) Stead Fast Paper Mills Vs.
\n\tCollector of Central Excise, 1983 (12) ELT 744 (Guj.).\n<\/p>\n
9.\tWe
\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mr.Oza and also perused very
\n\tminutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of
\n\tfact, all these questions reframed by Mr.Oza are different facets of
\n\tthe main question as to whether the Tribunal is justified in
\n\treducing the penalty to 25% of the duty leviable on the respondent.
\n\tAll these aspects of the main question are already considered by
\n\tthis Court in its order dated 18.11.2009 in the case of  Messers
\n\tExotic Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal
\n\tNo.572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942
\n\tof 2008, in the case of Commissioner of Central Exicse & Customs
\n\tVs. Rama Synsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21.1.2010.
\n\tThis Court after considering the decision of  Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (79)
\n\t  RLT 109 (Delhi), Union of India Vs. Dharmendra
\n\tTextiles, 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), Union of India Vs. Rajasthan
\n\tSpinning & Weaving  Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tK. P. Pouches (P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 2008 (228) ELT 31
\n\t(Delhi), Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak Vs. J. R. Fabrics
\n\tPvt. Ltd., 2009 (238) ELT 209,
\n\thas taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal retaining
\n\tthe penalty of 25% of the duty amount seems to be quite justified.
\n\tFor the reasons recorded in the said two judgments, we do not feel
\n\tit necessary to take any different view in this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tHowever,
\n\tMr.Oza has made two more submissions in this Tax Appeal.  He has
\n\temphatically stated that the respondent has not complied with
\n\tpre-condition for availment of benefit of reduced penalty under
\n\tproviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the
\n\tfirst proviso, the duty amount was not paid with interest and even
\n\tRs.75,000\/- is not deposited by the respondent within 30 days from
\n\tthe date of such determination, as required under second proviso to
\n\tSection 11AC of the Act.  So far as second issue is concerned,
\n\tMr.Oza submitted that the adjudicating authority is not under any
\n\tstatutory obligation to set out in its order the availability of
\n\tbenefit of reduced penalty prescribed under proviso to Section 11AC
\n\tof the Central Excise Act and to give an option to such person
\n\tliable for penalty under that Section. Both these issues were dealt
\n\twith by this Court in Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal
\n\tNo.869 of 2007 decided on 18.11.2009. It is also important to note
\n\tthat the adjudicating authority has not calculated the interest
\n\tneither in the order-in-original nor even thereafter. It is,
\n\ttherefore, too much
\n\tto expect from the respondent assessee to pay the interest alongwith
\n\tthe duty amount in absence of such calculation of interest. As far
\n\tas statutory obligation of the adjudicating authority is concerned,
\n\tthe Central Excise Department itself has issued Circular on
\n\t22.5.2008 wherein it is clarified that in all cases wherein penalty
\n\tunder Section 11AC of the Act is imposed the provisions contained in
\n\tthe first and second proviso of Section 11AC should be mandatorily
\n\tmentioned in the order-in-original itself by the adjudicating
\n\tauthority. It is, therefore, not open for the revenue to agitate
\n\tthis issue before the Court in contradiction of the Circular issued
\n\tby the Central Excise Department. This Court in  Messers
\n\tExotic Associates (Supra)
\n\thas
\n\tdirected the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order giving
\n\toption to the assessee to pay the duty amount within 30 days by
\n\tmaking it explicitly clear in the order itself that if the assessee
\n\t wants to avail such option he is permitted to do so.  In the case
\n\ton hand since the duty amount has already been paid by the
\n\trespondent assessee and if the interest and\/or Rs.75,000\/- were not
\n\tpaid by the respondent assessee, the adjudicating authority may send
\n\ta communication to the respondent assessee indicating therein that
\n\tthe particular amount of interest and\/or Rs.75,000\/- is not paid by
\n\tthe respondent assessee and hence if the assessee wants to avail the
\n\tbenefit of Rs.75,000\/-, such amount of interest and\/or penalty of
\n\tRs.75,000\/- should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt
\n\tof such communication, failing which they would be liable to pay
\n\tpenalty under Section 11AC
\n\tequivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tBefore
\n\tparting, we observe that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
\n\tsaid to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The authorities
\n\tcited by Mr.Oza in support of his submission that a non-speaking
\n\torder is passed by the Tribunal and hence it deserves to be
\n\tdismissed, were duly considered by us and we are of the view that
\n\tthey are not applicable to the facts of the present case.  The
\n\tTribunal while dismissing the Departmental Appeal observed that the
\n\tquantum of the penalty is to the extent of around 25% of the duty
\n\tamount and does not call for any interference.  The Tribunal is
\n\ttaking consistent view in the matters of penalty levied under
\n\tSection 11AC and when the duty amount is paid before issuance of
\n\tshow cause notice, the penalty of 25% of the duty amount is
\n\tretained. If the duty amount with interest is not paid in time and
\n\teven penalty of Rs.75,000\/- is not paid in time and option is not
\n\tgiven to the respondent assessee, we have taken the view that such
\n\toption should be given to the assessee and period of 30 days would
\n\tcommence from the date of giving such option. In this view of the
\n\tmatter, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tSubject
\n\tto the above clarification this Tax Appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           (K.A.Puj,J.)
\n(Rajesh H. Shukla,J.)<\/p>\n
rakesh\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/589\/2009 1\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 589 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters 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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-09T23:29:44+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-09T23:29:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-09T23:29:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-09T23:29:44+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-09T23:29:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010"},"wordCount":2206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-09T23:29:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-leave-on-19-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Leave on 19 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148122","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=148122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}