{"id":188092,"date":"2001-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001"},"modified":"2018-05-10T02:21:15","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T20:51:15","slug":"commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Hegde<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, Ashok Bhan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2901  of  2000\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. FISHER ROSEMOUNT (INDIA) LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/11\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nN. Santosh Hegde &amp; Ashok Bhan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SANTOSH HEGDE, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn a dispute pertaining to determination of the valuation<br \/>\nof goods imported by the respondent herein from M\/s.<br \/>\nRosemount Inc. USA, the Assistant Collector of Customs,<br \/>\nSpecial Valuation Bench, Bombay, held that the respondent<br \/>\nherein is a related person to M\/s. Rosemount Inc. of USA,<br \/>\nhence, it assumed that both the said companies are interested in<br \/>\nthe business of each other and that the prices are not the sole<br \/>\nconsideration. Therefore, it held that the valuation of the goods<br \/>\nimported by the respondent herein from M\/s. Rosemount Inc.<br \/>\nUSA will have to be done under Section 14(1)(b) of the<br \/>\nCustoms Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation Rules,<br \/>\n1963. The said authority refused to accept the CIF value of the<br \/>\ngoods imported by the respondent, consequently, it made an<br \/>\naddition of 2.4 per cent over and above the CIF value shown by<br \/>\nthe respondent of the goods imported by it. As stated above,<br \/>\nthis was done on the basis that the two companies, named<br \/>\nhereinabove, had the status of related persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAn appeal filed against the said determination by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein before the Collector of Customs (Appeals),<br \/>\nBombay, came to be dismissed, upholding the findings of the<br \/>\noriginal authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe aggrieved respondent preferred an appeal before the<br \/>\nCustoms, Excise &amp; Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,<br \/>\nRegional Bench at Mumbai (for short the tribunal) which<br \/>\nhaving reversed the said order of the original and appellate<br \/>\nauthority, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, is<br \/>\nbefore us in this appeal. The tribunal in this case, relying upon<br \/>\nits own judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay<br \/>\nv. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon [1987 (28) ELT 390] came to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that mere holding of a certain percentage of<br \/>\nstock by the foreign collaborator in the Indian company like the<br \/>\nrespondent herein, was not sufficient to constitute the<br \/>\nrelationship so as to make the two persons as related persons. It<br \/>\nfurther held that for two parties to be related, it also required the<br \/>\nexistence of interest by both in the business of each other. On<br \/>\nthe said basis, it came to the conclusion that mere fact that M\/s.<br \/>\nRosemount Inc. USA, had the 40 per cent equity share in the<br \/>\nrespondent company and had provided technical data base for<br \/>\nthe manufacture of electronic pressure transmitters ipso facto<br \/>\ndid not make the two companies related persons. In the absence<br \/>\nof any other material, the tribunal held that there was no reason<br \/>\nto reject the price declared by the respondent for the purpose of<br \/>\nvaluation. On the said basis, the tribunal reversed the findings<br \/>\nof the authorities below and allowed the appeal of the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is contended on behalf of the appellant before us that<br \/>\nM\/s. Rosemount Inc. USA and M\/s. Fisher Rosemount (India)<br \/>\nLtd., (the respondent herein) are related persons and have<br \/>\ninterest in the business of each other. Therefore, the valuating<br \/>\nauthority was justified in loading the declared value with extra<br \/>\n20%, more so because there was difference in the value of the<br \/>\ngoods exported by the American Company to Singapore and<br \/>\nAustralia on one hand and to the respondent on the other. It was<br \/>\nalso contended that the judgment of the tribunal in the case of<br \/>\nMaruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) was wrongly relied upon by the<br \/>\ntribunal, hence, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe applicability of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, to the<br \/>\nfacts of the case by the original and the appellate authority was<br \/>\nsolely based on the factum of related persons without there<br \/>\nbeing any other acceptable evidence. This finding of related<br \/>\nperson was again based on the fact of the equity participation of<br \/>\nthe US Company in the Indian Company and the technical data<br \/>\nbase supplied by the US Company to the Indian Company.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra), the tribunal had<br \/>\nheld :\n<\/p>\n<p>It is, no doubt, correct that Suzuki held<br \/>\n26% shares in Maruti and, for that reason,<br \/>\nhad a proportional representation on the<br \/>\nBoard of Directors of Maruti also. But<br \/>\nMaruti had no share holding in Suzuki nor<br \/>\nany representation on the Board of<br \/>\nDirectors of Suzuki. To rule out valuation<br \/>\nunder Section 14(1)(a), the seller and the<br \/>\nbuyer should have interest in the business<br \/>\nof each other. One-sided interest is<br \/>\ntherefore, not enough; there has to be a<br \/>\nmutuality of interest and Maruti is right in<br \/>\npleading that such mutuality of interest did<br \/>\nnot exist [1984 (17) ELT 323 <a href=\"\/doc\/1510881\/\">(SC)  Union<br \/>\nof India &amp; Ors. v. Atic Industries Ltd.<\/a>].\n<\/p>\n<p>Confronted with this situation, the learned<br \/>\nrepresentative of the department argued that<br \/>\nMaruti had an indirect interest in the<br \/>\nbusiness of Suzuki since Maruti was<br \/>\ninterested in technical knowhow from<br \/>\nSuzuki not only for the current models and<br \/>\ntheir components but also for future models<br \/>\nand their components. We do not agree with<br \/>\nthe departments plea. The transfer of<br \/>\ntechnical knowhow from Suzuki to Maruti is<br \/>\na separate commercial transaction governed<br \/>\nby the Licence Agreement and Suzuki<br \/>\ncharges a price for it. That does not create an<br \/>\ninterest of Maruti in the business of Suzuki,<br \/>\nJapan.\n<\/p>\n<p>Based on the above finding, the tribunal in that case had<br \/>\nheld that in the absence of any other material, it is not correct to<br \/>\nload the import price. It also held in that case that no evidence<br \/>\nhad been led before it to show that even the payment of royalty<br \/>\ninduced any extra commercial reduction in the import price.<br \/>\nThis judgment of the tribunal has since been accepted by this<br \/>\nCourt in the case of  Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti<br \/>\nUdyog Ltd., Gurgaon [1989 (22) ECR 482 (SC)]. Though by a<br \/>\nbrief judgment, this Court held that after examining the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act and the facts found by the tribunal, the<br \/>\ntribunal was right in its conclusion. On the said basis, the<br \/>\nappeal of the Collector of Customs came to be dismissed,<br \/>\naffirming the judgment of the tribunal. Therefore, the tribunal<br \/>\nin the present case rightly relied on the said judgment in Maruti<br \/>\nUdyog (supra), the facts of which case are almost similar to the<br \/>\nfacts of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>As noticed hereinabove, the original authority as well as<br \/>\nthe appellate authority proceeded on the basis that merely<br \/>\nbecause the US Company owned 40 per cent of equity shares in<br \/>\nthe Indian Company and that provided the technical data base to<br \/>\nthe Indian Company as also the Indian Company got the licence<br \/>\nto manufacture the electrical pressure transmitters in<br \/>\naccordance with the said technical data, the same was sufficient<br \/>\nto hold that the two companies were related persons. On this<br \/>\nbasis they drew an inference that the CIF value was not the sole<br \/>\nconsideration for sale of the goods imported by the respondent.<br \/>\nOnce, we find that the very basis relied upon by the original and<br \/>\nthe appellate authority suffers from the lack of acceptable<br \/>\nmaterial, then ipso facto the inference drawn from such<br \/>\nconclusion also is liable to be set aside. If that be so, then there<br \/>\nis hardly any other material to come to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nCIF value declared by the respondent did not truly represent the<br \/>\ncorrect value of the goods imported.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant, pointed out that it is quite evident from the material<br \/>\non record that the CIF value of the goods imported by the<br \/>\nrespondent did not include the freight as could be seen from the<br \/>\ndocuments available on record like the CIF value of the goods<br \/>\nsupplied by the said American Company to the other buyers at<br \/>\nAustralia and Singapore, hence, the authorities were justified in<br \/>\nloading the cost declared by the respondent with 20% addition.<br \/>\nPer contra, it is pointed out to us by Shri Joseph Vellapally,<br \/>\nlearned senior counsel for the respondent, that assuming it is so<br \/>\neven then the value of the goods imported by the respondent<br \/>\nwas much higher than the value of the goods supplied by the<br \/>\nAmerican Company to the purchasers at Australia and<br \/>\nSingapore. Therefore, no adverse inference could have been<br \/>\ndrawn on this count. Be that as it may, it is sufficient for us to<br \/>\nhold that once the case of the Revenue that the American and<br \/>\nthe Indian Company (respondent) are related persons, fails, we<br \/>\nthink the tribunal was justified in setting aside the orders of the<br \/>\noriginal as well as the appellate authority and we find no reason<br \/>\nto interfere with the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the<br \/>\nsame is hereby dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\tJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t(N.Santosh Hegde)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t  ..J<br \/>\nNovember 6, 2001.\t\t  (Ashok Bhan)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001 Author: S Hegde Bench: N. Santosh Hegde, Ashok Bhan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2901 of 2000 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. FISHER ROSEMOUNT (INDIA) LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/11\/2001 BENCH: N. Santosh [&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-188092","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>Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-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=\"2001-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T20:51:15+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-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T20:51:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1463,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\\\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T20:51:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 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":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T20:51:15+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-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001","datePublished":"2001-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T20:51:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001"},"wordCount":1463,"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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001","name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T20:51:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-fisher-rosemount-india-ltd-on-6-november-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, &#8230; vs M\/S. Fisher Rosemount (India) Ltd on 6 November, 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\/188092","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=188092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}