{"id":169372,"date":"2001-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001"},"modified":"2018-01-04T05:49:04","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T00:19:04","slug":"pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001","title":{"rendered":"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal &#8211; Mumbai<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)  <\/p>\n<p> 1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of one Solna 225, 2<br \/>\ncolour offset printing machine and one 45 inch guillotine. Both were<br \/>\ndeclared to be second hand. Examination of the consignment revealed the<br \/>\npresence in addition of these two machines of one more second hand Solna<br \/>\ntwo colour off set machine. Proceedings were initiated against the<br \/>\nappellant proposing among other things, to enhance the value of these<br \/>\nmachines. The order of the Additional Collector of Customs passed in<br \/>\nadjudication resulted in such enhancement. On appeal from this order, the<br \/>\nTribunal accepted the contentions of the importer that valuation of second<br \/>\nhand machinery ought not to be based on other second hand machinery<br \/>\nunless it was shown that it was identical in characteristic and use. The<br \/>\norder read as follows: &#8220;In view of teh assessable value of imported goods<br \/>\ncomprising of two second hand &#8220;Solna 225- Two Colour offset printing<br \/>\nmachine&#8221; one old &#8220;guillotine 45 inch&#8221; Polar 115 Electromat&#8221; machine was<br \/>\ndeterminable on the basis of the unit price of each type of machine as<br \/>\nindicated in supplier&#8217; invoice. Since the case records did not contain<br \/>\ninvoice and the suppliers&#8217; invoice. Since the case records did not contain<br \/>\ninvoice and the Chartered Engineers certificate, we remand the case to the<br \/>\nAssistant Collector for determinign the assessable value of the machines<br \/>\nand consequential relief to the appellant,s if any&#8221;. By a subsequent order,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal substituted the word &#8220;Additonal Collector&#8221; for the word<br \/>\n&#8220;Asst. Collector&#8221; appearing in the above extract.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The importer accordingly approached the Custom House. The Dy.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs passed an order on 4.4.96. In that order he<br \/>\ndetermined the value of the guillotine to be 5030.50 and solna 225<br \/>\nmachine to be 9700 each, (totaling 19,400) and ordered consequential<br \/>\nrelief subject to the provisons contained in Section 27(2) of the Act. In the<br \/>\nlight of these last observations, notice was issued proposing to deny the<br \/>\nrefund of duty which would otherwise be due. Adjudicating on that notice,<br \/>\nthe Additonal Commissioner found that the incidence of duty had not been<br \/>\npassed on and ordered refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare<br \/>\nFund. These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals) confirming these orders.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The first contention of the counsel for the appellant relates to the<br \/>\nvaluation of the Solna machines. In determining the value, the Dy.<br \/>\nCommissioner has gone by the price in the invoice of one Solna machine to<br \/>\nbe 9700 pounds and applied it. It is contended before us that, by a<br \/>\nsubsequent corrigendum the supplier of the machine has said that the first<br \/>\ninvoice contained a typographical error and that the invoice should have<br \/>\nread two machines instead of one. The invoice in two places mentioned<br \/>\none printing machine. The general declaration in it of &#8220;Printing machinery<br \/>\n(second hand)&#8221; mentions one Solna 225 machine. Further down, there is a<br \/>\nspecific entry for one Solna 225 machine packed in cases 3, 4, 5 and 6. The<br \/>\nexplanation offered for the mistake by the supplier is that the letter of credit<br \/>\nwhich was opened at the instance of the importer &#8220;incorrectly&#8217; read one<br \/>\nmachine instead of two. It is now the claim before us that the letter of<br \/>\ncredit incorrectly mentioned one machine, and not two. Such an absurd<br \/>\ncontention has to be dismissed. We therefore conclude that the so-called<br \/>\ncorrection is worthless.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The next contention that the value indicated in the certificate of the<br \/>\nchartered engineer who examined the goods and certified them to be second<br \/>\nhand machinery (as required by the Import Policy) of 4850 ought to be<br \/>\naccepted again requires dismissal. The Tribunal has ordered valuation on<br \/>\nthe basis of the invoice and not based on any other document.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. We therefore find no ground for interference with the value accepted<br \/>\nby the Dy. Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Counsel for the appellant then contended that he would be able to<br \/>\nshow that the incidence of duty, of which the refund would be otherwise<br \/>\ndue had not been passed on the requested time to produce documents in<br \/>\nsupport of his contention. The matter was therefore adjourned to<br \/>\n27.9.2001. On that date, the counsel conceded that he has been unable to<br \/>\nobtain such document. It would then follow that the finding that the refund<br \/>\nis payable, not to be appellant, but to the credit of Consumer Welfare Fund<br \/>\nfor the reason that it has not been shown to any other person, has to be<br \/>\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal &#8211; Mumbai Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 Bench: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan JUDGMENT Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical) 1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for clearance of one Solna 225, 2 colour offset printing machine and one 45 inch guillotine. Both were [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 - 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\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-04T00:19:04+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T00:19:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\"},\"wordCount\":763,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\",\"name\":\"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T00:19:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 - 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\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-04T00:19:04+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001","datePublished":"2001-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T00:19:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001"},"wordCount":763,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001","name":"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T00:19:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pujara-packaging-vs-commissioner-of-customs-mumbai-on-27-september-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pujara Packaging vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 27 September, 2001"}]},{"@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\/169372","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=169372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}