{"id":191812,"date":"2007-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-01-11T23:50:07","modified_gmt":"2017-01-11T18:20:07","slug":"commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  735-744 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd.,Etc. Etc\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT
\nO R D E R<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 735-744 OF 2002
\nwith Civil Appeal Nos.8671-8672\/2002 and 2624 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
This batch of civil appeals filed by the Department is directed against
\nthe judgment and order dated 4th April, 2001 passed by CEGAT, New Delhi
\nin appeal No.E\/489-498\/2000-A.\n<\/p>\n
The main issue which arose for determination before the tribunal was
\nwhether Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (RSWML) was the real
\nmanufacturer who carried out textile processing from its process house at
\nMordi and if so whether the Department was right in invoking best judgment
\nassessment in terms of Rule 7 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975
\n(1975 Rules for short).\n<\/p>\n
RSWML are the manufacturers of yarn and fabric.  It had set up a
\nprocess house at Mordi in 1994-95.  The process house was set up for
\nprocessing their fabric.  The woven fabrics manufactured at their weaving
\nunit was processed on job work basis by Mordi processing house.  This was
\nwith effect from 29th March, 1995.  On 16th June, 1995 the said process
\nhouse was let out by RSWML to Bhilwara Spinners Limited (BSL).  Later
\non the lease agreement between RSWML and BSL stood terminated and the
\nprocess house was leased out to Purvi Fabrics & Textures (PFTL).\n<\/p>\n
The above arrangement was doubted by the Department.  Therefore,
\nthe Department issued show cause notice dated 22nd September, 1998
\nclaiming differential duty from RSWML for the period from 16th June, 1995
\nto February 20, 1996 principally on the ground that the real manufacturer
\nwas RSWML and that the above arrangement of lease was a sham as it was
\narrived at to change the basis of valuation\/assessment of fabrics processed
\nfrom “comparable goods basis\/method” to “cost method”.\n<\/p>\n
On factual analysis the tribunal came to the conclusion that the lease
\nagreement referred to above was genuine and, therefore, RSWML was right
\nin invoking the cost method under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the said 1975 Rules.
\nAccording to the tribunal the present case stood covered by the judgment of
\nthis Court in the case of Ujagar Prints & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
\n[(1989) 3 SCC 531].\n<\/p>\n
At the outset we may point out that the question of valuation was not
\nexamined by the tribunal.  Even if we are to proceed on the assumption that
\nthe tribunal had erred, we are still not inclined to interfere in this matter for
\nthe reasons given hereinafter mentioned.  We are, therefore, proceeding on
\nthe basis that RSWML is the real manufacturer and that the lease was a
\nsham.\n<\/p>\n
The question which would still arise, whether even if one is required
\nto proceed on the basis of “comparable goods method” is there a case of
\nundervaluation.  Is the matter revenue neutral?  In this connection, we may
\npoint out that the “comparable goods method” is contemplated by Rule
\n6(b)(i) whereas the “cost method” is contemplated by Rule 6(b)(ii).  In this
\ncase even if we are to proceed under Rule 6(b)(i), as contended by the
\nDepartment, we find from the facts that RSWML used to receive unsorted
\nfabrics from its process house, RSWML thereafter used to carry out the
\nwork of sorting and thereafter the goods were cleared through their Depot.
\nUnder Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act as it stood at the relevant
\ntime, in case of valuation falling under Section 4(1), the normal price
\nconstituted the basis of assessable value. We quote hereinbelow Section
\n4(1)(a):\n<\/p>\n
“4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of
\ncharging of duty of excise.(1) Where under this Act,
\nthe duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods
\nwith reference to value, such value, shall, subject to the
\nother provisions of this section, be deemed to be <\/p>\n
(a)\tthe normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at
\nwhich such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee
\nto a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for
\ndelivery at the time and place of removal, where the
\nbuyer is not a related person and the price is the sole
\nconsideration for the sale :”\n<\/p>\n
In the present case we are proceeding on the basis that ex-factory
\nprice was ascertainable.  Even then, the underlined words indicate that if sale
\nprice of sorted goods at the Depot of RSWML is to be taken into account the
\nvalue of such goods (sorted goods) cleared at the depot would be different
\nfrom the value of unsorted goods (semi-finished goods) cleared at the
\nfactory gate.  According to the Department ex-factory price was required to
\nbe taken into account.  However, the Department has lost sight of the fact
\nthat there was dissimilarity of the goods cleared at the factory gate, being
\nunsorted goods, on the one hand and the goods cleared at the Sales Depot of
\nRSWML being sorted goods.  If this difference is kept in mind then there
\nwas what is called as “value addition”.  That value addition has not been
\ntaken into account by the Department.  For that value addition abatement
\nwas claimed by the assessee.  There is no discussion on this aspect of the
\ncase in the order passed by the Commissioner.  In that connection we quote
\nhereinbelow a complete table submitted by RSWML before the
\nCommissioner which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Even if the value is determined on comparable goods basis,
\nthere would be no differential duty liability at all.  This is evident
\nfrom the following:\n<\/p>\n
Qty (mtrs)
\nValue (Rs.)
\nAssessable value as per 52A Invoices
\nfrom process house for the period
\n16.6.95 to 20.2.98
\n17004521
\n105,53,29,128
\nAdd: excise duty paid<\/p>\n
16,20,17,071
\nTotal cum duty value
\n17004521
\n121,73,46,199
\nAdd 40% towards value addition
\nbetween lump and graded fabric<\/p>\n
48,69,38,480
\nExpected sale price of processed
\nfabrics – graded
\n17004521
\n170,42,84,679
\nProportionate actual realization on
\nsale of graded fabrics as per
\ncommercial invoices
\n17004521
\n167,35,65,236″\n<\/p>\n
\tIf one analysis the above table it is clear that if one has to work out the
\nassessable value on “comparable goods method” under Rule 6(b)(i), there
\nhas been, according to the assessee, value addition between lump fabric and
\ngraded fabric.  If that value addition is taken into account then the
\nproportionate actual realization on sale of graded fabrics would come to
\nRs.167,35,65,236 crores which is the value which is more than what is
\ncalculated by the Department.  In other words the assessee claimed 40%
\nabatement.  The Commissioner has given discounts but not abatement.  The
\ntwo concepts are different.  The concept of abatement arises on account of
\nthe condition of the goods cleared at the factory gate which is materially
\ndifferent from the condition of the goods cleared from the Sales Depot.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis matter was adjourned by this Court on 31st October, 2007.
\nAdequate time was given to the Commissioner to ascertain whether
\nRSWML was entitled to abatement of 40% on account of value addition.
\nThis has not been done.  Moreover, as stated above, the question of
\nabatement was raised before the Commissioner by the assessee.  That
\nquestion was never decided.  In the circumstances, we see no reason to
\ninterfere with the impugned judgment of the tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore concluding, we may state that valuation is not an exact
\nscience.  Some amount of guess work exists in valuation.  Therefore,
\ndifferent methods are prescribed by Valuation Rules.  These rules are
\nprescribed in order to find out the actual realization which realization
\nconstitutes the basis of assessable value.  At the same time one must keep in
\nmind that different methods prescribed have to converge to a common
\nvaluation.  For example, as stated above, Rule 6(b)(i) prescribes
\n“comparable goods method”, Rule 6(b)(ii) prescribes “cost method” and
\nRule 7 which contemplates best judgment assessment states that the
\nAssessing Officer is free to apply any of the methods prescribed by Rules 1
\nto 6 of 1975 Rules.  We would like to, therefore, emphasize the aspect of
\nconvergence.  It is not possible to accept wide variation in the result.  The
\nDepartment may apply different methods of valuation, but it has to
\nultimately ascertain by applying rule of convergence the estimated ad
\nvalorem value which would constitute the basis of assessable value.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor aforestated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by
\nthe Department and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007 Bench: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 735-744 of 2002 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur RESPONDENT: M\/s.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd.,Etc. Etc DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/11\/2007 BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & […]<\/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-191812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\" \/>\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.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-11T18:20:07+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-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\\\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-11T18:20:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1370,\"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-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\\\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-11T18:20:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\\\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-11T18:20:07+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-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-11T18:20:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007"},"wordCount":1370,"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-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007","name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills ... on 28 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-11T18:20:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-rajasthan-spg-wvg-mills-on-28-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise, … vs M\/S.Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills … on 28 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/191812","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=191812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191812\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}