{"id":2127,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-21T06:39:15","modified_gmt":"2015-08-21T01:09:15","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/920\/2008\t 10\/ 13\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. 9 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 11 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER,\nCENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-II - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nOMKAR\nTEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD. - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYN RAVANI 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\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\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 RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
\tThe Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise has filed these two Tax Appeals under Section 35G of
\n\tthe Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate the following
\n\tsubstantial questions of law for determination and consideration of
\n\tthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
 (a)   Whether in the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in
\nconfirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that
\nDeemed Credit earned by the respondent in terms of Notification
\nNo.6\/02-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2002 had not lapsed despite the said
\nnotification having been withdrawn vide Notification No.08-03-CE(NT)
\ndated 1.3.2003 ?\n<\/p>\n
(b)   Whether in the facts
\nand circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in placing
\nreliance on the ratio of its judgment rendered in the case of M\/s.
\nS.V.Business (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE vide judgment and order dated 6.12.2003
\nholding that Cenvat Credit once earned legally does not lapse and
\nthere can be no objection to its utilization even after withdrawal of
\nDeemed Credit of that commodity ?\n<\/p>\n
\tSince identical questions
\n\tare proposed in both the Tax Appeals, the above questions are
\n\treproduced from the Tax Appeal No.9 of 2008. The facts are also
\n\ttaken from the said Tax Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is the case of the
\n\tDepartment that as per Notification 6\/2002-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2002 as
\n\tamended by Notification No.8\/2003-CE(NT) dated
\n\t1.3.2003, Deemed Credit Scheme was withdrawn with effect from
\n\t1.4.2003. In the alternative, the facility for the Cenvat Credit
\n\tfacility under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 has been
\n\textended for the textile industries, under which, the manufacturers
\n\tcould avail the benefit of Cenvat credit on actual basis under Rule
\n\t3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, in respect of the inputs used in
\n\tthe manufacture of the final products.  It was noticed by the
\n\tAssistant Commissioner of Central Excise that the respondent had
\n\tcommenced to avail the benefit of the Cenvat credit on actual basis
\n\ton the inputs used in the manufacture of the final products, in
\n\tlight of the amended Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 effective from
\n\t1.4.2003 and had utilized the said credit against payment of central
\n\texcise duty as the respondent assessee had also simultaneously
\n\tcontinued to avail the benefit of the Deemed Credit Scheme for
\n\tpayment of Central Excise duty at the time of clearance of the final
\n\tproducts, as per the provisions of the erstwhile Notification
\n\tNo.6\/2002-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2002. The show cause notice was,
\n\ttherefore, issued on the respondent assessee and after its
\n\tadjudication an order in original was passed on 30.4.2005 wherein it
\n\tis recorded that the earlier Notification was having validity period
\n\tupto and inclusive of 31.3.2003 only.  That the respondent had
\n\tsimultaneously availed Cenvat credit on actual basis under Rule 3 of
\n\tCenvat credit Rules 2002 in respect of inputs used in the
\n\tmanufacture of final products i.e. fabrics and that the facility of
\n\tdeemed credit during the period of April 2003 was not available to
\n\tthe respondent-assessee.  He has, therefore, taken the view that
\n\tsuch an act of the respondent was against the interest of the
\n\tRevenue as it amounted to wrongful availment of credit and
\n\tutilisation leading to clearance of the goods without payment of
\n\tduty in contravention of provisions of the Act and the rules and,
\n\ttherefore, deemed credit was confirmed against the respondent under
\n\tthe provisions Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with
\n\tRule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.  The respondent was also held
\n\tliable for interest at the prescribed rate for the amount of duty
\n\tshort paid (equivalent to the amount of deemed credit utilised
\n\twrongly) under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise
\n\tAct, 1944 and penalty was also imposed on the respondent assessee
\n\tunder Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Being aggrieved and
\n\tdissatisfied with the order in original, the respondent filed Appeal
\n\tbefore the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his
\n\torder dated 17.11.2005 held that the issue to be decided is as to
\n\twhether the unutilised deemed credit earned upto 31.3.2003 before
\n\twithdrawal of the deemed credit scheme with effect from1.4.2003 vide
\n\tNotification No.8\/2003-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2003 and lying balance on
\n\tthe date of deemed credit scheme on 31.3.2003 is lapsed or not.
\n\tWhile deciding this issue he referred to the decision of the Bombay
\n\tHigh Court in the case of  TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co.
\n\tLtd., Vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (159) ELT 129 (Bom.),
\n\tthe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of  Eicher
\n\tMotors Ltd., Vs. Union of India, reported in 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC)
\n\tand this Court’s decision in the case of  Dipak Vegetable Oil
\n\tIndustries Ltd., Vs. Union of India, reported in 1991 (52) ELT
\n\t222(Guj.).\n<\/p>\n
\tPlacing reliance on the
\n\tratio of the above decisions of the Tribunals, High Courts and the
\n\tHon’ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that vide
\n\tFinance Act, 1999, Clause 2 (xxviii) was inserted in Section 37 of
\n\tthe Central Excise Act giving power to Central Government to make
\n\trule for providing for lapsing of credit of duty lying in unutilised
\n\twith the manufacturer of the specified excisable goods as on
\n\tappointed date and also for not allowing such credit to be utilised
\n\tfor payment of any kind of duty on any excisable goods on and from
\n\tsuch date, consequent to the same.   He further held that no rule or
\n\tnotification has been issued providing for lapsing of the deemed
\n\tcredit rightly earned till the date the relevant Notification
\n\tNo.52\/2001-CE(NT) and 54\/2001-CE(NT) both dated 29.6.2001 and
\n\tNotification No.6\/2002-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2002 was enforced for not
\n\tallowing such credit to be utilised for payment of any kind of duty
\n\ton any excisable goods on and from such date.  He has therefore held
\n\tthat unutilised deemed credit earned upto 31.3.2003 before
\n\twithdrawal of the deemed credit Notification with effect from
\n\t1.4.2003 and lying in balance on 31.3.2003 will not be lapsed and
\n\tcould be utilised for payment of duty on or before 1.4.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing aggrieved by the
\n\tsaid decisions the Department filed an Appeal before the Tribunal.
\n\tThe Tribunal held that identical issue was considered by the
\n\tTribunal in the case of M\/s.S.V.Business Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise, wherein, vide its order dated 6.12.2006, the
\n\tTribunal held that once Cenvat Credit is earned legally, the same
\n\tdoes not lapse and there can be no objection to its utilization even
\n\tafter withdrawal of deemed credit of that commodity.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is this order of the
\n\tTribunal which is under challenge in the present two Tax Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Y.N. Ravani, learned
\n\tStanding Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal
\n\tis improper, erroneous, invalid, bad in law and proceeds on
\n\tmisinterpretation of relevant Notification and provisions of law
\n\tand, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In
\n\tany case, according to Mr.Ravani, substantial question of law arises
\n\tout of the order of the Tribunal and there is no judgment of any
\n\tHigh Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue considering the
\n\tNotification in question.  Hence, both the Appeals require to be
\n\tadmitted.  He has further submitted that deemed credit availed of by
\n\tthe respondent was not admissible in view of the facility having
\n\tbeen withdrawn with effect from 1.4.2003, more particularly when
\n\tNotification granting deemed credit was not in force on the date on
\n\twhich the respondent had availed of Deemed Credit alleged to be
\n\tlying unutilised in the balance on the duty of discharge\/payment of
\n\tCentral Excise Duty. He has further submitted that on scrutiny of
\n\tER-1 returns for the month of April, 2003 it was clearly noticed
\n\tthat the respondent had commenced to avail the benefit of cenvat
\n\tcredit on actual basis of manufacture of finished product as per the
\n\tamended Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003 and,
\n\ttherefore, utilization of the Deemed Credit was wrongful. He has
\n\tfurther submitted that the first proviso to Clause 3 of the said
\n\tNotification provided that the credit of duty in respect of inputs
\n\tused in goods exported under bond shall be allowed to be utilized
\n\ttowards payment of duty of excise on any final products cleared for
\n\thome consumption or for export under bond or be refunded to the
\n\tmanufacturer in case such adjustment was not possible. He has,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that the Appeals are required to be admitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving heard Mr.Ravani,
\n\tlearned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and having
\n\tperused the order of the authorities below including the order
\n\tpassed by the Tribunal in the case of  S.V.Business Pvt.
\n\tLtd.,(Supra) and judgment of this Court as well as Hon’ble
\n\tSupreme Court we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered
\n\tby the earlier decision.  This Court in the case of  Dipak
\n\tVegetable Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Supra)
\n\thad clearly held that a right, which is acquired as a result of a
\n\tstatutory provision cannot be taken away retrospectively unless the
\n\tstatutory provision so provides or by necessary implication it has
\n\tthe same effect.  Even with regard to the proviso to Rule 3 support
\n\tcan be derived from the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
\n\tCourt in the case of  Eicher Motors Ltd., Vs. Union of
\n\tIndia, 1999 (106) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tthe scheme sought to be introduced cannot be made applicable to the
\n\tgoods which had already come into existence in respect of which the
\n\tearlier scheme was applied under which the assessees had availed of
\n\tthe credit facility for payment of taxes.  Any manner or mode of
\n\tapplication of the said rule would result in affecting the rights of
\n\tthe assessees.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that
\n\tSection 37 of the Act does not enable the authorities concerned to
\n\tmake a rule which cannot be said to be applied to the goods
\n\tmanufactured prior to 16.3.1995 on which duty had been paid and
\n\tcredit facility thereto has been availed of for the purpose of
\n\tmanufacture of further goods.  The Court further observed that when
\n\ton the strength of the rules available certain acts have been done
\n\tby the parties concerned, incidents following thereto must take
\n\tplace in accordance with the scheme under which the duty had been
\n\tpaid on the manufacture products and if such a situation is sought
\n\tto be altered, necessarily it follows that right, which had accrued
\n\tto a party such as availability of a scheme, is affected and, in
\n\tparticular it loses sight of the fact that the provision for
\n\tfacility of credit is as good as tax paid till tax is adjusted on
\n\tfuture goods on the basis of the several commitments which would
\n\thave been made by the assessees concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Considering above legal
\n\tposition, we are of the view that the assessee’s case is squarely
\n\tcovered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence no
\n\tsubstantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
\n\t Both these Appeals are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (K. A. PUJ, J.)
\n\t(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n
kks<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/920\/2008 10\/ 13 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 9 of 2008 With TAX APPEAL No. 11 of 2008 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-II – Appellant(s) […]<\/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-2127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 - 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-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-21T01:09:15+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=\"9 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-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-21T01:09:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1831,\"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-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-21T01:09:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 - 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-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-21T01:09:15+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-21T01:09:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":1831,"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-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008","name":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-21T01:09:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 23 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/2127","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=2127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}