{"id":165919,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3"},"modified":"2015-10-30T15:42:06","modified_gmt":"2015-10-30T10:12:06","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1239\/2008\t 6\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1239 of 2008\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER-\nCENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nALEMBIC\nLTD. - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nHRIDAY BUCH for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR SR DIXIT,\nAdv. with MR RC SAXENA, Adv. for                                M\/S\nTRIVEDI &amp; GUPTA 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 D.A.MEHTA\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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant-Revenue has proposed the following two questions:\n<\/p>\n<p> (A)\tWhether<br \/>\nin the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent is entitled<br \/>\nto refund of Rs.10,83,216\/- as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nand upheld by the Tribunal?\n<\/p>\n<p>(B)\tWhether<br \/>\nin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals) and Tribunal are justified in holding that there was no<br \/>\nunjust enrichment even though the respondent removed \/ cleared the<br \/>\ngoods without indicating the element of Excise Duty in their sales<br \/>\ninvoice, contrary to Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant. Inviting attention to the<br \/>\nobservations made in Paragraphs No.36 and 37 of the order in original<br \/>\nmade by the adjudicating authority, it was contended that both,<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, were in error in holding<br \/>\nthat the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers.<br \/>\nThat the claim made by respondent-assessee for refund was rightly<br \/>\nheld to be inadmissible on the basis of applicability of principle of<br \/>\nunjust enrichment considering the fact that the commercial invoices<br \/>\nprepared by the depot did not contain bifurcation of the price and<br \/>\nthe excise duty components. That respondent-assessee having not<br \/>\ndischarged the onus, the findings recorded by Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nand the Tribunal were perverse, giving rise to a substantial question<br \/>\nof law, more particularly, the second question proposed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\nagainst that, learned advocate appearing for respondent-assessee<br \/>\nreferred to Paragraph No.24 of the order in original to emphasize<br \/>\nthat the assessee had not received any amount qua the discounted<br \/>\nportion and hence, there was no question of passing over the duty<br \/>\nincidence to the customers.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIn<br \/>\nthe impugned order, the Tribunal has reproduced the findings of<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) which read as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.7.On<br \/>\nconsidering the matter, I find that it is not disputed by the<br \/>\nDepartment that duty was paid by the appellants at the factory gate<br \/>\non the entire quantity of goods at the time of stock transfer to the<br \/>\ndepots. Subsequently, in terms of the Free Unit Discount Scheme, the<br \/>\ngoods were cleared to their customers from various depots under<br \/>\ncommercial invoices in which also the Free Units supplied to the<br \/>\ncustomers were stated. The order in original has also accepted that<br \/>\nthe rate mentioned in the commercial invoices tally with the rate<br \/>\n(inclusive of excise) in the central excise invoices. However, as the<br \/>\ncommercial invoices show only a composite value and not the basic<br \/>\nvalue + central excise duty element separately, the adjudicating<br \/>\nauthority held that the appellants have not been able to prove that<br \/>\nduty burden on the Free Units portion had not been passed on.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.8\tI<br \/>\nam unable to agree with the above reasoning of the adjudicating<br \/>\nauthority for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)<br \/>\nThere is no statutory requirement that commercial invoices should<br \/>\nshow the break-up of value into basic value + central excise duty,<br \/>\netc.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)<br \/>\nSince the appellants have not realized any amount in respect of the<br \/>\nFree goods they have also not passed on the duty element on these<br \/>\ngoods (which had been paid by them at the time of stock transfer of<br \/>\nthe said goods from the factory).\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)<br \/>\nThe case is squarely covered by the ratio of the following case laws:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tC.C.E.,<br \/>\nVishakapatanam vs. M\/s. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. &#8211; 2006 (198)<br \/>\nELT 237 (Tri-Bang.)<\/p>\n<p>\tSarabhai<br \/>\nChemicals vs. C.C.E., Vadodara   2004 (168) ELT 70 (Tri-Mum.)<\/p>\n<p>I,<br \/>\ntherefore, find that the appellants have discharged the burden of<br \/>\nproving that duty has not been passed on in the subject case and<br \/>\nhence they are entitled to the refund of Rs.10,83,216\/- sanctioned by<br \/>\nthe adjudicating authority but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\nview of the discussion and findings above, the order of the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority is upheld except with regard to the order in<br \/>\nrespect of refund of Rs.10,83,216\/- which is modified to the extent<br \/>\nthat the same is admissible to the appellants and hereby allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\nTribunal has further found that once the quantity discount is known<br \/>\nand passed on, deduction is admissible. That Revenue has not proved<br \/>\nthat free units as per the Scheme of Trade Discount had not been<br \/>\nparted with by the assessee. In light of the aforesaid findings<br \/>\nconcurrently recorded by both the appellate authorities, only to<br \/>\nascertain whether factually the respondent-assessee had received<br \/>\nanything more, namely, even the value of the free units, the Court<br \/>\nconsidered the record. The following findings recorded by the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority in fact go to establish the claim of the<br \/>\nassessee that incidence of duty in relation to free units had not<br \/>\nbeen passed on and the assessee had not received anything qua the<br \/>\nquantity discount granted.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19.\tI<br \/>\nhave also perused the re-conciliation statements presented (along<br \/>\nwith the Invoices) showing therein a co-relation between the factory<br \/>\nInvoice and Depot\/ C&amp;F Agent&#8217;s Invoice along with details of<br \/>\nDiscounts being given. On verification with the respective factory<br \/>\nInvoices and the Invoices issued from the Depot\/ C&amp;F Agent&#8217;s<br \/>\nplace, it is clearly found that goods description in the commercial<br \/>\nInvoice vis-a-vis that in factory&#8217;s invoice is easily identifiable<br \/>\nwith respect to the particular  Batch No . (Though same<br \/>\ndescription of goods but with different batch numbers are also<br \/>\nappearing) and at the end of the Invoices, were summing up the total<br \/>\nbill amount the discount portion is clearly indicated (either in<br \/>\npercentage terms and\/or its quantification) and had been deducted<br \/>\nfrom the total amount. It is also noticed that Unit Price charged for<br \/>\nthe goods sold from the Depot \/ C&amp;F Agent&#8217;s place is also same as<br \/>\nthat the Unit price at factory gate (both the invoices are indicating<br \/>\nUnit Price) and the discount had been given on the overall price<br \/>\ncharged. This way the Discount had been really been passed on.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.\tOn<br \/>\nverification of the payment particularly on sample basis, it is found<br \/>\nthat the assessee has received the payment only to the extent of<br \/>\nDiscounted portion.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn<br \/>\nlight of the aforesaid position and facts, it is apparent that<br \/>\nreliance on provisions of Section 12A of the Central Excise Act,<br \/>\n1944, cannot carry the case of appellant any further. The said<br \/>\nSection requires that every person who is liable to pay duty of<br \/>\nexcise on any goods shall, at the time of clearance of the goods,<br \/>\nprominently indicate in all the documents relating to assessment,<br \/>\nsales invoice, etc., the amount of such duty which will form part of<br \/>\nthe price at which the goods are to be sold. On a plain reading, the<br \/>\nphrase  at the time of clearance of the goods  cannot be read to<br \/>\nmean removal of goods from the depot to their further destination,<br \/>\nbut can only mean removal of goods from the manufacturing unit in the<br \/>\nfirst instance. In the facts of the present case, the record reveals,<br \/>\nand there is no dispute as to the said fact, that at the time of<br \/>\nclearance of the goods, the invoice in question carried the details<br \/>\nof excise duty component separately qua the price of the goods<br \/>\nmanufactured.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nthe circumstances, on none of the grounds pleaded can any legal<br \/>\ninfirmity be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal.<br \/>\nAccordingly, in absence of any substantial question of law, the<br \/>\nappeal is dismissed. Notice discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(D.A.Mehta,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha<br \/>\nKumari, J.)               <\/p>\n<p>(sunil)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1239\/2008 6\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1239 of 2008 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER- CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus ALEMBIC LTD. &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-30T10:12:06+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-30T10:12:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\"},\"wordCount\":1248,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-30T10:12:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-30T10:12:06+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-30T10:12:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3"},"wordCount":1248,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3","name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-30T10:12:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/165919","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=165919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}