{"id":20962,"date":"2010-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-12T15:26:13","modified_gmt":"2017-10-12T09:56:13","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/2460\/2009\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 2460 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\n- CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS VADODARA - II - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nORBIT\nFABRICS LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRM CHHAYA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthis appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [the<br \/>\n\tAct], the appellant- Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs,<br \/>\n\tVadodara, has challenged the order dated 2nd<br \/>\n\tJuly, 2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate<br \/>\n\tTribunal [the Tribunal], proposing the following two questions:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;[i] Whether, in<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, despite the clear cut<br \/>\nsuppression of facts on the part of the assessee in not mentioning<br \/>\nthe specific serial number and List Number applicable in the<br \/>\nexemption Notification No. 21\/2002-CUS, the CESTAT is right in<br \/>\nholding that there is no suppression and allowing the appeal on<br \/>\ngrounds of limitation?\n<\/p>\n<p>[ii] Whether, in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case, the Hon&#8217;ble CESTAT is right in<br \/>\nignoring the undertaking dated 5.6.2003 given by the assessee at the<br \/>\ntime of clearance of their goods that &#8220;in case of any duty<br \/>\nliable to be paid by them as an 100% EOU the same will be paid by<br \/>\nthem?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\trespondent-assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, debonded its<br \/>\n\timported capital goods after obtaining necessary permission from the<br \/>\n\tDevelopment Commissioner. At the time of debonding, two bills of<br \/>\n\tentry, both dated 2nd<br \/>\n\tJuly, 2003 were filed by the assessee, one for payment of customs<br \/>\n\tduty at the rate of 5% under the EPCG scheme and the other for<br \/>\n\tpayment of customs duty claiming concessional rate in terms of<br \/>\n\tNotification No.21\/2002-CUS dated 1st<br \/>\n\tMarch, 2002. A show cause notice dated 19th<br \/>\n\tSeptember, 2007 came to be issued to the assessee in respect of bill<br \/>\n\tof entry No.1\/2003-04 for recovery of unpaid additional customs duty<br \/>\n\tto the tune of Rs.21,39,320\/- and special additional customs duty of<br \/>\n\tRs.6,20,403\/-, in all, Rs. 27,59,723\/- along with penalty and<br \/>\n\tinterest. The notice came to be adjudicated vide order dated 15th<br \/>\n\tMay, 2008, whereby the duty demand came to be confirmed along with<br \/>\n\tpenalty and interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. Before<br \/>\n\tthe Tribunal the learned advocate for the assessee did not dispute<br \/>\n\tthe liability to pay the duty but contended that the show cause<br \/>\n\tnotice was barred by limitation. The Tribunal, by the impugned<br \/>\n\torder, upheld the said contention of the assessee and set aside the<br \/>\n\torder impugned before it and allowed the appeal on the ground<br \/>\n\tof limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tR.M. Chhaya, learned Senior Standing Counsel invited the attention<br \/>\n\tof the Court to the order made by the adjudicating authority, to<br \/>\n\tsubmit that the elements of willful mis-statement and suppression<br \/>\n\twere clearly made out in the facts of the present case. It was<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that in the bill No.1\/2003-04, the assessee mentioned the<br \/>\n\tnotification No.21\/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 without mentioning the<br \/>\n\tserial number of the said notification under which it was claiming<br \/>\n\texemption. It has also not mentioned the details of the additional<br \/>\n\tduty\/special additional duty applicable in the case of the Bill of<br \/>\n\tEntry. As per serial No.250 of the said notification, customs duty @<br \/>\n\t5% plus additional duty was required to be paid and as per serial<br \/>\n\tNo.251 of the said notification customs duty @5% was only required<br \/>\n\tto be paid. Thus, by not mentioning the serial number of the<br \/>\n\tnotification, the assessee knowingly created a situation to mislead<br \/>\n\tthe concerned officers to believe that its entire assessment was to<br \/>\n\tbe done @ 5% of basic customs duty. It was submitted that in the<br \/>\n\tcircumstances, the adjudicating authority was justified in invoking<br \/>\n\tthe extended period of limitation and that the Tribunal was not<br \/>\n\tjustified in throwing the burden on the revenue by holding that the<br \/>\n\tproper officer never pointed out that the countervailing duty or<br \/>\n\tspecial additional duty was also required to be paid by the<br \/>\n\tassessee. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed<br \/>\n\treliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the<br \/>\n\tcase of Motiram<br \/>\n\tTolaram and anr v. Union of India and anr.,(1999)<br \/>\n\t6 Supreme Court Cases 375, and more particularly on the contents of<br \/>\n\tparagraph 9 thereof, wherein, it has been held that when under the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of the Excise Act, an assessee wants to claim benefit of<br \/>\n\tan exemption notification, then, the onus is on him to prove and<br \/>\n\tshow that the conditions, if any, which are imposed by the exemption<br \/>\n\tnotification have been satisfied. Inviting attention to the impugned<br \/>\n\torder of the Tribunal, it was submitted that the assessee had not<br \/>\n\tdisputed that it was required to pay duty, but had contested the<br \/>\n\tsame only on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. It<br \/>\n\twas submitted that the assessee having not disputed the liability to<br \/>\n\tpay the amount, and having given an undertaking dated 5.6.to the JAC<br \/>\n\tthat in case of any duty liable to be paid by it as a 100% EOU, the<br \/>\n\tsame will be paid by it, cannot now be permitted to renege from such<br \/>\n\tundertaking and that the exchequer should not be deprived of the<br \/>\n\trevenue on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly<br \/>\n\tpointed out the amount of duty which the assessee was liable to pay<br \/>\n\tin accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tcan be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, on merits, the<br \/>\n\tassessee has not disputed its liability to pay the duty before the<br \/>\n\tTribunal. The only contention advanced on behalf of the assessee was<br \/>\n\tthat the demand was barred by limitation inasmuch as the bills of<br \/>\n\tentry which were filed on 2nd<br \/>\n\tJune, 2003 were duly assessed by the proper officer. It was<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that, the allegation<br \/>\n\tin the show cause notice about the suppression of correct serial<br \/>\n\tnumber of the notification was not in accordance with settled law,<br \/>\n\tinasmuch as the revenue was expected to know the correct rate of<br \/>\n\tduty required to be paid and could not pass the burden to the<br \/>\n\tassessee. It was submitted that the assessee, in accordance with its<br \/>\n\tunderstanding, had claimed the benefit of Notification No.<br \/>\n\t21\/2002\/CE and paid duty after filing bill of entry. If other duties<br \/>\n\twere required to be paid by it, the onus was upon the Customs<br \/>\n\tOfficers to adjudicate its duty liability in accordance with law at<br \/>\n\tthe time of assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tTribunal, after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of<br \/>\n\tthe assessee observed that the assessee had filed bill of entry<br \/>\n\twhich was assessed by the proper officer, who, never pointed out<br \/>\n\tthat the countervailing duty or special additional duty was also<br \/>\n\trequired to be paid by the assessee. The Tribunal was of the view<br \/>\n\tthat no objection having been raised at the time of assessment of<br \/>\n\tthe bill of entry, the assessee could not be saddled with any mala<br \/>\n\tfide intention or suppression so as to justifiably invoke the longer<br \/>\n\tperiod of limitation. According to the Tribunal, this was the case<br \/>\n\tof mistake or lack of knowledge on the part of the assessee as also<br \/>\n\ton the part of the Customs Officer assessing the bill of entry, in<br \/>\n\twhich case, the extended period of limitation was not available to<br \/>\n\tthe revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tfacts as emerging from the record of the case indicate that the<br \/>\n\tassessee had filed the bill of entry No.OFL\/Debonding\/01\/2003-04,<br \/>\n\tcalculating the Basic Customs Duty @ 5% amounting to Rs.6,90,875\/-<br \/>\n\ton the capital goods availing exemption under Notification<br \/>\n\tNo.21\/2002-CUS, dated 1.03.2002. The said bill of entry came to be<br \/>\n\tassessed by the proper officer who at the relevant point of time,<br \/>\n\tdid not raise any objection or point out to the assessee that it was<br \/>\n\tliable to pay countervailing duty or special additional duty.<br \/>\n\tAccording to the adjudicating authority, the assessee had not<br \/>\n\tmentioned the serial number and list number applicable for the<br \/>\n\tremoval of capital goods with deliberate intention to mislead the<br \/>\n\tassessing officer regarding the rate of duty applicable. The<br \/>\n\taforesaid view of the Adjudicating Authority is fallacious, for the<br \/>\n\treason that in case the assessee had not indicated the serial number<br \/>\n\tof the relevant notification, it was for the concerned Assessing<br \/>\n\tOfficer to point out the same to the assessee and call upon it to<br \/>\n\tstate the proper facts. Without calling upon the assessee to state<br \/>\n\tthe serial number under which the goods would fall, and without<br \/>\n\tpointing out any defect in the bill of entry filed by the assessee,<br \/>\n\tthe concerned officer had assessed the bill of entry and had not<br \/>\n\traised any demand of countervailing duty or special additional duty.<br \/>\n\tThe assessee had rightly or wrongly claimed liability to pay duty at<br \/>\n\ta particular rate. At the time of assessing the bill of entry, it is<br \/>\n\tfor the concerned officer to ascertain the actual duty liability.<br \/>\n\tMere non-mentioning of the serial number under which the goods<br \/>\n\twould fall cannot be equated with suppression, because it was for<br \/>\n\tthe concerned officer to even otherwise verify from the description<br \/>\n\tof the goods as to under which item number the same would fall and<br \/>\n\tassess the duty liability accordingly. The concerned officer having<br \/>\n\tfailed to do so, the onus cannot be thrown on the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the aforesaid<br \/>\n\tbackdrop, it cannot be said that there was any wilful misstatement<br \/>\n\tor suppression on the part of the assessee so as to invoke the<br \/>\n\textended period of limitation. The Tribunal, was therefore,<br \/>\n\tjustified in holding that the show cause notice was time-barred and<br \/>\n\tthat no case was made out for invoking the extended period of<br \/>\n\tlimitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>For<br \/>\n\tthe foregoing reasons, there being no infirmity in the impugned<br \/>\n\torder of the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question<br \/>\n\tof law as proposed or otherwise, much less, a substantial question<br \/>\n\tof law, so as to warrant interference. The appeal is accordingly<br \/>\n\tdismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[HARSHA<br \/>\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>[H.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>ANTANI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>pirzada\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 Author: Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/2460\/2009 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 2460 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER &#8211; CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS VADODARA &#8211; II &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus ORBIT FABRICS LTD [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-12T09:56:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-12T09:56:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1621,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-12T09:56:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-12T09:56:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-12T09:56:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010"},"wordCount":1621,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010","name":"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-12T09:56:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The on 9 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/20962","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=20962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}