{"id":182517,"date":"2000-12-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-12-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000"},"modified":"2017-10-18T03:51:44","modified_gmt":"2017-10-17T22:21:44","slug":"aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000","title":{"rendered":"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, R.C. Lahoti, Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  486 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nARISTOCRAT AGENCIES, HYDERABAD ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nEXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, HYDERABAD AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nDR. A.S. ANAND CJ &amp; R.C. LAHOTI &amp; SHIVARAJ V. PATIL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 Supp(5) SCR 469<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered Civil Appeal No. 486 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short question which requires our consideration is whether<br \/>\ncountervailing duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of<br \/>\nissue of permit or on the date of actual import of liquor into the State?<br \/>\nBrief facts necessary to answer the question may be noticed:\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants are holders of distributor licence in Form F.L. 47 issued<br \/>\nunder Andhra Pradesh Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970<br \/>\n(hereinafter &#8216;the Rules&#8217;). They held four permits and acquired them under<br \/>\nthe Rules on payment of countervailing duty, as was prevailing on the date<br \/>\nwhen the permits were granted. First import permit was granted to the<br \/>\nappellant on 31st January, 1991 and 2nd, 3rd and 4th permits were granted<br \/>\non 6th February 1991. However, before consignment of liquor was actually<br \/>\nimported on the strength of those permits, notification (G.O.Ms. 96) dated<br \/>\n8th February, 1991 was issued. The notification was published in the<br \/>\nOfficial Gazette on 9th February, 1991. By this notification, issued in<br \/>\nexercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise<br \/>\nAct, 1968 (hereinafter &#8216;the Act&#8217;), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh amended<br \/>\nan earlier notification dated 30th September, 1968 and enhanced the rate of<br \/>\ncountervailing duty from Rs. 45 per litre of the strength of proof spirit<br \/>\nto Rs. 70 per litre of the strength of proof spirit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants imported consignments of liquor under the first permit on<br \/>\n27th February, 1991 and on the basis of the second permit on 28th February,<br \/>\n1991. Consignment of liquor was imported on the basis of the 3rd and the<br \/>\n4th permit on 18th February, 1991. All these imports were effected during<br \/>\nthe validity of the permit, i.e., within 30 days from the date of issue of<br \/>\npermit. The Office of the Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad informed the<br \/>\nappellant that since there had been enhancement of countervailing duty, by<br \/>\nnotification dated 8.2.1991 (published on 9.2.1991) from Rs. 45 to Rs. 70,<br \/>\nthe appellants were required to pay differential of the countervailing duty<br \/>\nbetween the duty already paid by them and the enhanced countervailing duty,<br \/>\nwithin a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The<br \/>\nappellant questioned the validity of the demand by filing a writ petition<br \/>\nin the Andhra Pradesh High Court. A Bench of the High Court, by a common<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 8th November, 1991 dismissed the batch of cases<br \/>\nincluding the writ petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the<br \/>\nappellant is before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>The argument raised in the High Court on behalf of the appellant was that<br \/>\nsince countervailing duty had already been paid at the time of grant of the<br \/>\nimport permit on the basis of the rate of the duty in force at that time,<br \/>\nenhancement effected through notification dated 8.2.1991 could have no<br \/>\napplication to the imports of liquor made by the appellant within the<br \/>\nperiod of validity of the period of permit [of 30 days], even if imports<br \/>\nwere made after enhanced duty came into effect by virtue of the impugned<br \/>\nnotification. The argument did not find favour with the High Court and in<br \/>\ncur opinion, rightly.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 21 of the Act is the charging section relating to excise duty or<br \/>\ncountervailing duty on excisable articles. It provides as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;21. Excise duty or countervailing duty on excisable articles: (1) The<br \/>\nGovernment may, by notification, levy an excise duty on any excisable<br \/>\narticles manufactured or produced in the State [&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.] at such<br \/>\nrates not exceeding the rates mentioned in the Schedule, as may be<br \/>\nspecified in the notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  The Government may, by notification, levy a countervailing duty on any<br \/>\nexcisable article manufactured or produced elsewhere in<\/p>\n<p>India and imported into the State [&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.] at such rate as may be<br \/>\nspecified in the notification, which may not exceed the rates of excise<br \/>\nduty on similar excisable articles levied under sub-section (1).\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) Different rates may be specified in sub-sections (1) and (2) for<br \/>\ndifferent kinds of excisable articles and different modes of levying duties<br \/>\nunder section 22.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Schedule referred to in sub-section (I) of Section 21 of the Act<br \/>\n(supra) provides for maximum rates of excise duty on different intoxicants.<br \/>\nSub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act unmistakably empowers the State<br \/>\nGovernment, by notification, to levy countervailing duty on any excisable<br \/>\narticle manufacture or produced elsewhere in India and imported into the<br \/>\nState at such rate as may be specified in the notification and different<br \/>\nrates may be specified for different kinds of excisable articles. Both<br \/>\nexcise duty and countervailing duty are required to be assessed and<br \/>\ncollected as soon as the taxable event arises. Excise duty being<br \/>\nessentially a duty on production or manufacture of excisable goods, the<br \/>\nevent attracting tax is the manufacture or production of the excisable<br \/>\ngoods. Countervailing duty, on the other hand, s required to be levied,<br \/>\nassessed and collected when excisable articles are imported into the State.<br \/>\nThe object of levy and collection of countervailing duty is to counter-<br \/>\nbalance excise duty, which is leviable on similar goods, if manufactured<br \/>\nwithin the State. By its very nature and concept countervailing duty<br \/>\nbecomes leviable on the date of the import itself and is governed by rate<br \/>\nof duty as in force on the date of import. It is irrelevant that at the<br \/>\ntime of obtaining a permit, the assessee also pays countervailing duty. In<br \/>\ncase the rate of duty continues to be the same as on the date of import,<br \/>\ni.e., entry into the State of the excisable goods, no extra countervailing<br \/>\nduty is payable but if the rate of duty is enhanced, it is the enhanced<br \/>\nduty which becomes payable. Of course, under Rule 10 (6) of the Rules,<br \/>\ncountervailing duty and the import fee once paid &#8216;shall not be refunded in<br \/>\nany case&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/1983052\/\">In S.K. Pattanaik (Dead) Through L.Rs. v. State of Orissa and Ors.,<\/a> [2000]<br \/>\n1 SCC 413, a three-judge Bench of the Court noticed difference between<br \/>\nconcept of excise duty and countervailing duty in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Excise duty&#8221; and &#8220;countervailing duty&#8221; are well-known concepts and are<br \/>\nattracted in different situations. &#8220;Excise duty&#8221; is essentially a duty on<br \/>\nmanufacture of goods, and the taxable event is the manufacture of the<br \/>\nexcisable goods. &#8220;Countervailing duty&#8221;, on the other hand, is imposed when<br \/>\nexcisable articles are imported into the State, in order to counterbalance<br \/>\nthe excise duty, which is leviable on similar goods if manufactured within<br \/>\nthe State. So far as countervailing duty is concerned, the incidence of the<br \/>\nimpost is on the import of the excisable articles, i.e., at the time of<br \/>\nentry into the State. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Court, then went on to consider the meaning of the expression &#8220;levy&#8221;<br \/>\nand &#8220;collection&#8221; and opined:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;While the expression &#8220;levy&#8221; may include both the process of taxation as<br \/>\nwell as the determination of the amount of tax or duty, the expression<br \/>\n&#8220;collection&#8221; refers to actual collection of the payable duty or the tax, as<br \/>\nthe case may be. Since the taxable event for attracting excise duty or<br \/>\ncountervailing duty is the manufacture or import of excisable goods into<br \/>\nthe State, the charge of incidence of duty stands attracted as soon as the<br \/>\ntaxable event takes place and the facility of postponement of collection of<br \/>\nduty under the Act or the rules framed thereunder, can in no way affect the<br \/>\nincidence of duty on the imported goods. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>In our opinion, the demand of differential amount of countervailing duty<br \/>\nfrom the appellant, under the circumstances, was perfectly justified since<br \/>\ndemand was made on the basis of the duty as in force on the date of import<br \/>\nof the consignment into the State. The duty was to be assessed and<br \/>\ncollected as in force at the time of import.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, our answer to the question, posed in earlier part of the judgment, is<br \/>\nthat the countervailing duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the<br \/>\ndate of actual import of the consignment into the State irrespective of the<br \/>\nduty as in force at the time of obtaining the permit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court, under the circumstances, rightly dismissed the writ<br \/>\npetition, filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>We find no merit in this appeal which, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.<br \/>\nThere will, however, be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Civil Appeal Nos. 482-483 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the parties agree that the judgment rendered by us in<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No. 486 of 1998, decided above, applies to this case also as<br \/>\nthese appeals also arise out of common judgment dealt by us in that case.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the reasons stated in C.A. No. 486 of 1998, these appeals also fail and<br \/>\nare dismissed but with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000 Bench: Dr. A.S. Cj, R.C. Lahoti, Shivaraj V. Patil CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 486 of 1998 PETITIONER: ARISTOCRAT AGENCIES, HYDERABAD ETC. RESPONDENT: EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, HYDERABAD AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/12\/2000 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND CJ &amp; R.C. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad ... vs Excise Superintendent, ... on 7 December, 2000 - 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\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad ... vs Excise Superintendent, ... on 7 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-17T22:21:44+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=\"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\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T22:21:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1452,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\",\"name\":\"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad ... vs Excise Superintendent, ... on 7 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-12-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T22:21:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad ... vs Excise Superintendent, ... on 7 December, 2000 - 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\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad ... vs Excise Superintendent, ... on 7 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-17T22:21:44+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T22:21:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000"},"wordCount":1452,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000","name":"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad ... vs Excise Superintendent, ... on 7 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-12-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T22:21:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aristocrat-agencies-hyderabad-vs-excise-superintendent-on-7-december-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aristocrat Agencies, Hyderabad &#8230; vs Excise Superintendent, &#8230; on 7 December, 2000"}]},{"@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\/182517","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=182517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}