{"id":211569,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-09T00:31:45","modified_gmt":"2016-11-08T19:01:45","slug":"commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/580\/2009\t 8\/ 10\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. 580 of 2009\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\n- CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nINDIAN\nSTEEL CORPORATION LIMITED - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=================================================\nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDARSHAN M PARIKH for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>1.<br \/>\n\t\tAppellant Revenue has challenged order dated 26.08.2008 made by<br \/>\nthe Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal)<br \/>\nproposing the following two questions stated to be substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether<br \/>\n\tthe respondent is eligible for benefit of exemption notification<br \/>\n\tno.39\/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 in respect of Galvanized Corrugated<br \/>\n\tSheets (G.S. Sheets)\/Defective Galvanized Corrugated Sheets even<br \/>\n\tthough same are manufactured after 31.12.2005, which is the cut-off<br \/>\n\tdate for availing the benefit of notification mentioned ibid?\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether<br \/>\n\tthe Tribunal could have allowed the benefit of the exemption<br \/>\n\tnotification no.39\/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001, without coming to the<br \/>\n\tconclusion that the respondent was utilizing the same machinery,<br \/>\n\twhich was installed before the cutoff date.?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nfacts stated briefly are that the respondent is engaged in<br \/>\nmanufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 72 and 79 of<br \/>\nthe Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent<br \/>\nset up its unit in Kutch District after 31.07.2001 and was availing<br \/>\nthe benefit of area based exemption Notification No.39\/2001-CE dated<br \/>\n31.07.2001. Under the said Notification, new units set up in Kutch<br \/>\nDistrict on or after 31.7.2001 and commencing commercial production<br \/>\nbefore 30.12.2005 were entitled to the benefit of the said<br \/>\nNotification. A manufacturer entitled to avail the benefit of the<br \/>\nsaid Notification was first required to utilize the entire Cenvat<br \/>\nCredit available to him on the last date of the month under<br \/>\nconsideration for payment of duty for goods cleared during such<br \/>\nmonths and the balance duty amount was required to be paid through<br \/>\nPLA. Duty paid in cash through PLA was liable to be refunded to the<br \/>\nmanufacturer. The respondent satisfied all the conditions of the<br \/>\nNotification in relation to its main products and was availing of the<br \/>\nbenefit of the Notification and was regularly filing refund claims,<br \/>\nwhich were being sanctioned by the authorities.  The claim for refund<br \/>\nof duty paid on corrugated CR sheets and defective corrugated sheets<br \/>\nmade by the respondent assessee came to be rejected by the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority on the ground that the respondent had<br \/>\ncommenced production and clearance of corrugated sheets only after<br \/>\n31.12.2005, that is, the cut-off date stipulated in the aforesaid<br \/>\nNotification. Being aggrieved, the respondent carried the matter in<br \/>\nappeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who held in favour of<br \/>\nrespondent. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal<br \/>\nand failed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>D. M. Parikh learned Standing Counsel for appellant revenue<br \/>\nsupported the order-in-original made by the adjudicating authority.<br \/>\nIt was submitted that insofar as Galvanised Corrugated Sheets and<br \/>\nDefective Galvanised Corrugated Sheets are concerned, production and<br \/>\nclearance thereof had commenced only after 31.12.2005 which was the<br \/>\ncut-off date specified under the relevant notification and as such,<br \/>\nthe respondent assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the said<br \/>\nnotification in respect of the said product.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 20.11.2007 has recorded<br \/>\nthat the respondent had already commenced commercial production of<br \/>\nspecified goods, i.e., Cold Rolled Sheets and Galvanized Sheets<br \/>\nbefore 31.12.2005. That the corrugated sheets are produced from the<br \/>\nsame Plant and Machinery used for manufacture of the above products<br \/>\nand that corrugation of Galvanized sheets is only a down stream<br \/>\nproduct of Cold Rolled Steel Sheets. The Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nfurther observed that commercial production had commenced on<br \/>\n05.09.2005 as approved by the Committee as the respondent had<br \/>\ncommenced production of C.R. Sheets and Galvanized Sheets and strips<br \/>\non the said date. That it was the same C.R. Sheets or Galvanized C.R.<br \/>\nSheets\/strips which were either corrugated or cleared as plain<br \/>\nsheets\/strips depending upon the demand and customer requirements.<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) was of the view that corrugation of<br \/>\nC.R.\/Galvanised sheets\/strips cannot be termed as a new product as<br \/>\nthe basic character of C.R. sheets or G.C. Sheets does not undergo<br \/>\nany changes after corrugation and the product remains the same. That<br \/>\nit was established that the respondent had not set up any new plant<br \/>\nand machinery after the cut off date for manufacture of any new<br \/>\nproduct line. The Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly held that the<br \/>\nrespondent was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification<br \/>\nin relation to the Galvanized Corrugated C.R. Sheets and the<br \/>\ndefective G.C. Sheets produced and cleared by the respondent from its<br \/>\nunit set up at Kutch and was accordingly eligible for refund of<br \/>\nexcise duty paid in PLA on the said goods in terms of the said<br \/>\nExemption Notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAs<br \/>\ncan be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has<br \/>\nreferred to the aforesaid findings recorded by Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals). Thereafter upon appreciation of the evidence on record,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal has found that there was no dispute that the respondent<br \/>\nhad satisfied the conditions of the Exemption Notification and was<br \/>\nbeing extended the benefit of the said Notification in respect of<br \/>\nother products. That the only objection raised was that insofar as<br \/>\ncorrugation of sheets so manufactured was concerned, the same had<br \/>\ntaken place after 31.12.2005 and hence the benefit of the<br \/>\nNotification could not be extended qua the said product. The Tribunal<br \/>\nfound that it was not the case of the revenue that any plant or<br \/>\nmachinery was installed in the factory of the respondent after the<br \/>\ncut-off date. Referring to the letter F.No.119\/21\/2006-CX.3 dated<br \/>\n10.7.2008 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs whereby<br \/>\nit had been clarified that where a unit starts producing some<br \/>\nproducts (after cut-off date) using the plant and machinery installed<br \/>\nupto the cut-off date and without any addition to the plant and<br \/>\nmachinery, the unit would be eligible for the benefit of the<br \/>\nnotification because the plant and machinery used for manufacture has<br \/>\nremained the same, the Tribunal noted that even if corrugated sheets<br \/>\nare considered to be a new product, the same were manufactured by the<br \/>\nrespondent by using the plant and machinery which were already<br \/>\ninstalled in the factory upto the cut-off date and without addition<br \/>\nof new plant and machinery. According to the Tribunal in view of the<br \/>\nclarification given by the Board the benefit of the Notification was<br \/>\nrequired to be extended to the assessee. That it was well settled<br \/>\nthat the revenue cannot argue against the clarifications issued by<br \/>\nthe Board. The Tribunal further held that even in absence of the<br \/>\nclarification, no fault could be found with the order of Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals), inasmuch as, the entire plant and machinery were installed<br \/>\nand manufacture of plain C.R. sheets had commenced before the cut-off<br \/>\ndate. That subsequent corrugation of plain sheets would not amount to<br \/>\nproduction of an altogether new and different product so as to deny<br \/>\nthe respondent the benefit of the notification.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThus,<br \/>\nit is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the<br \/>\nTribunal have found that the admittedly the respondent had installed<br \/>\nthe plant and machinery and commenced manufacture of plain C.R.<br \/>\nsheets prior to the cut off date stipulated in the notification; that<br \/>\nthe corrugated sheets were manufactured using the same plant and<br \/>\nmachinery which were installed prior to the cut-off date; that<br \/>\nCorrugated C.R.\/Galvanized Sheets is not a new product as the basic<br \/>\ncharacter of CR sheets does not undergo change after corrugation and<br \/>\nthe product remains the same. Thus, in the light of the concurrent<br \/>\nfindings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals),<br \/>\nafter appreciation of the evidence on record, it is not possible to<br \/>\nstate that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal<br \/>\ninfirmity. No questions of law as proposed or otherwise, much less<br \/>\nany substantial questions of law can be stated to arise out of the<br \/>\nimpugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tThe<br \/>\nAppeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(D.A.Mehta, J.)\t\t\t(H.N.Devani, J.)<\/p>\n<p>sompura<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/580\/2009 8\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 580 of 2009 ================================================= COMMISSIONER &#8211; CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus INDIAN STEEL [&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-211569","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged ... on 18 March, 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-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged ... on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-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=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-08T19:01:45+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-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-08T19:01:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1320,\"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-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged ... on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-08T19:01:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 Appellant Revenue Has Challenged ... on 18 March, 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-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged ... on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-08T19:01:45+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-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-08T19:01:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010"},"wordCount":1320,"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-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged ... on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-08T19:01:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-appellant-revenue-has-challenged-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Appellant Revenue Has Challenged &#8230; on 18 March, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/211569","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=211569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}