{"id":214615,"date":"2001-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001"},"modified":"2015-08-06T22:21:43","modified_gmt":"2015-08-06T16:51:43","slug":"tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai<\/div>\n
Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 (81) ECC 86, 2002 (149) ELT 782 Tri Mumbai<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
JH Joglekar, Member (Technical)<\/p>\n
1. M\/s. Tata Infotech Ltd. (TIL) are engaged in the business of development and export of computer software. One of their units is situated in the Noida Export Processing Zone (NEPZ). Units so situated are entitled to import capital goods and equipment without payment of duty provided the resultant products are exported on required value addition. The following machinery and equipment were so imported by TIL:-\n<\/p>\n
  1. 2200 Computer System\t2. U6000 UNIX Computer System\n<\/p>\n
3. Micro (A Series)\t4. Personal Computer\n<\/p>\n
5. Mapper Software\t6. LINC Software <\/p>\n
2. Show Cause Notice dated 16.2.93 was issued to TIL alleging failure to comply with the terms of Notification 339\/85 dated 21.11.85. It was alleged that the actual software exported was worth only Rs.6.9 crores. It was alleged that their claim of export of expertise in the form of consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 7.44 crores could not be taken as export earnings so as to qualify for the benefit of the said notification. It was alleged that such earnings were not authenticated by the Customs.\n<\/p>\n
3. M\/s. TIL filed their reply. It was claimed that consultancy export was also to be taken into account when assessing the value of exports towards fulfilment of export obligation under the said notification.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Commissioner passed Order upholding the charges made in the Show Cause Notice. He ordered confiscation of the machinery and equipment imported free of duty totally valued Rs. 2,08,75,877\/- but permitted redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25 lacs. He confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 2,93,60,904\/- but did not impose any penalty on M\/s. TIL.\n<\/p>\n
5. The appeal filed by M\/s. TIL against this Order was disposed of by the Tribunal vide final Order No.C\/357\/95\/C-II. The Tribunal noticed a later notification 133\/94-Cus which not only repealed notification 339\/85 but specified that anything done or action taken under the earlier notification would be deemed to have been done under notification No. 133\/94. The Tribunal held this to amount to widening the scope of the exemption. The Tribunal ruled that the burden cast upon the importer could be discharged not only by export of software but also by training of personnel, by developing and designing software for exports and also for consultancy for development of software on sites abroad. In the light of this ruling the Tribunal held that the Commissioner’s view in the order in adjudication did not sustain. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Commissioner with a direction that he should look into the contracts to ascertain the extent of earnings and also to co-relate such earnings with the goods imported and installed at NEPZ. On such reconciliation is being made, the Commissioner was directed to determine the extension of benefit of the said notification.\n<\/p>\n
6. In pursuance of this direction, the Commissioner heard the counsels of M\/s. TIL.\n<\/p>\n
7. Reference was made to Public Notice No.22\/93 issued by Customs and to the annexures thereto. It was claimed that all the details of the exports made were available to the Customs on periodical basis and therefore there was no necessity to file contracts. Even then 118 contracts were submitted to the Commissioner. A Profile was filed of 90 contracts showing co-relation between services rendered and equipment installed in the unit at NEPZ. It was claimed that the RBI had permitted M\/s. TIL to retain abroad 45% of the export earnings. Form-B prescribed vide a Public Notice therefore showed only 55% of the total export earnings which were brought to India. During the period covered by the Show Cause Notice the foreign exchange so earned was Rs. 21.21 crores although the burden cast upon TIL by virtue of this scheme was of Rs. 13.21 crores only. With reference to the contracts it was claimed that these referred to the machinery and equipment installed only in NEPZ and at no other units of M\/s. TIL in India. It was claimed that in terms of the notification the accountal was to be made to the Development Commissioner of SEEPZ and not to the Customs. Certificates of the Chartered Accountants certify the export earnings repatriated.\n<\/p>\n
8. The Commissioner observed that in view of the direction of the Tribunal the adjudicating authority had to look into the details of the contracts. He observed that what was required from the noticee was to file contracts and not to show annexure to the public notice. He admitted that the 118 contracts had been filed but he doubted that in other cases the profiles could take place of contracts. On scrutiny of the contracts he observed that none of the contracts showed that they pertained to their NEPZ Unit. He observed that some contracts were signed by the company secretary who was located in Mumbai. He observed that some of the contracts were on letterheads of the units situated in Bombay. He observed that some of the contracts were unsigned.\n<\/p>\n
9. He referred to the affidavit filed by the Vice President of M\/s. TIL to the effect that the imported equipment and machinery were installed in NEPZ only. He held that the affidavit was not supported by any evidence. He did not accept the contentions affirmed in the affidavit. He observed that M\/s. TIL has failed to establish a clear co-relation between the contracts and the systems installed. As regards the quantum of earnings also the Commissioner observed that he was not convinced. He observed that in spite of advice M\/s. TIL had not kept separate account for the NEPZ units. ON the failure of M\/s. TIL to satisfy him, he passed orders confirming the duty but refrained from confiscation of machinery or imposing penalty.\n<\/p>\n
10. The present appeal has been filed against this Order. The arguments made before us were the same as were made before the Commissioner. We have examined the documents and considered the submissions.\n<\/p>\n
11. The Tribunal in the remand order had directed the Commissioner “To
\nlook into the details of Contracts to ascertain the extent of earnings by
\nway of consultancy service and whether they can be corelated with
\nthe goods and instaled at NEPZ…..” In pursuance of this direction, the
\nassesses submitted a number of contracts. Where the contracts were
\nnot available they submitted project profiles.\n<\/p>\n
12. From the findings recorded by the Commissioner, it is obvious that he
\ninterpreted the term “look into the details of the contracts” too literally.
\nTherefore, instead of concentrating upon finding the relevant details on
\nperusal of the Contracts, he looked for deficiencies in the documents. In
\nthis he doubted the contract signed by the Company Secretary who was
\nsituated in Mumbai and not in NEPZ. He opined that the proper official
\nfor signing the Contracts should be an officer posted at NEPZ. He also
\nremarked that some of the contracts were recorded on the letter-head of
\nthe Mumbai Unit.\n<\/p>\n
13. We have examined the copies of the contracts on record. Counsel at
\nthe time of hearing emphasized that almost all the contracts were with
\nM\/s. Unisys Corporation or their other companies such as Nihon
\nUnisys Ltd., Unisys China Ltd., etc. It is true that some of the copies
\nof the contracts are not signed by either of the Parties. The Learned
\nCounsel drew our attention to the plea being old some documents
\nwere lost and what were submitted were copies of drafts.\n<\/p>\n
14. It is,  therefore, likely that when the copies of the draft agreement were
\nsubmitted before the Commissioner; where the contracts were not
\navailable, assessee has supplied “Software Project Requisitions,” From
\nthe content of the document it is clear that it is not a formal agreement.\n<\/p>\n
The contract number, however, is referred to in this document and
\nsuggests that the Requisitions\/Agreement is a part of an umbrella
\nagreement.\n<\/p>\n
15. Where the contracts were not available, Project Profiles have been
\nfiled. The profile itself refers to the contract number and also gives a
\nbrief outline of the project detailing the equipment used in the
\nprocessing. This has been signed by the Vice-President. An Affidavit
\nof the Vice-President is also on record. In the Affidavit, the
\ncomponents parts of the systems which are installed in the NEPZ are
\nlisted; namely,<\/p>\n
 1. 2200 Computer System,2. U6000 UNIX Computer Sytem,\n<\/p>\n
3. Micro (A Series),\t4. Personal Computer,\n<\/p>\n
5. Mapper Software,\t6. LINC Software.\n<\/p>\n
16. It is averred that these are installed only in NEPZ and nowhere else. It
\nis averred that in 85 contracts systems were utilized in the production
\nof software, etc.<\/p>\n
17. The Commissioner has dismissed the affidavit stating that no
\nsupporting evidence has been adduced. An affidavit is a statement or a
\ndeclaration by a person where he stands by the truth of the contents of
\nthe declaration. and which the deponent is able to of his own
\nknowledge to prove. In a number of circumstances, affidavits become
\nevidence in the eyes of law. In fact, the statements made in affidavit
\ncan be used as admissions made by the deponent in subsequent or other
\nproceedings also. An affidavit becomes evidence in certain situations.\n<\/p>\n
Whether an affidavit in acceptable or not as an evidence has to be
\njudged by the court having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
18. It is not that the said affidavit is made in lieu of any evidence, but that
\nit seeks to bolster the gaps in the evidence presented by the Assesses.\n<\/p>\n
19. The value of affidavits as evidence has come for scrutiny in a number
\nof judgments.\n<\/p>\n
20. The Delhi High Court in the case of Haji Jaffer Versus U.O.I. [(1986)
\n(24) ELT 15] was examining the validity of an affidavit filed by an
\nofficial of the Jail. The court did not rely thereupon on the observation
\nthat the contentions were not supported by the jail record but that the
\naverment was made from the personal knowledge of the deponent.\n<\/p>\n
21. In the judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. Amal Tara Industries<\/a> [(1998)
\n(37) ELT 152], the Tribunal held that an affidavit filed by a
\nknowledgeable person could not be disbelieved in the absence of any
\nmaterial in rebuttal.\n<\/p>\n
22. The Tribunal in another judgment (Kulbushan Jain v. C.C.E. Delhi
\n[1991) 111 ELT 906] held that a affidavit could not be dismissed
\nlightly without a proper enquiry and examination of the deponent.\n<\/p>\n
23. We observe that in the present instance the affidavit is of a very senior
\nperson. The affidavit is not based upon his personal knowledge but
\nrefers to various records such as 85 contracts entered into by the
\ncompany during 1993 to 1996 and states that these wee fulfilled used
\nthe systems installed at NEPZ. Specific details are given of contracts
\nwhich mentioned either the hardware used or the software used.\n<\/p>\n
24. During the submission, Counsel placed on letter record a compilation
\nshowing performance of 118 contracts. The Contract Number, the
\nExamination no the platform used and the revenue earned, both in
\nForeign Currency and in the Indian currency are the details furnished.\n<\/p>\n
Out of these, 79 contracts involved the use of 2200 Computer System.\n<\/p>\n
13 contracts were performed using Unix system. The Mapper
\nSoftware was used in 2 cases. LINC software was used in 3 contracts
\n6 contracts were fulfilled by using the P.C. 5 contracts were done on
\nMICRO-A-SERIES. The inflow in Indian Currency in fulfilment of
\nthese contract amounted to Rs. 20.39 Crores. This was against the
\nobligation cast upon the assessee of earning Rs. 13.29 Crores.\n<\/p>\n
25. The contentions of the affidavit are further supported by the certificate
\nof the Charted Accountants. In this certificate the earnings made by
\nM\/s TIL during the period 1993-94 to 1998-99 have been shown
\nlocation wise. During this period the Total Gross Export Income of the
\nNEPZ is Rs. 166 Crores.\n<\/p>\n
26. As regard the Consultancy services rendered also, we find evidence of
\nearnings on this count. On of the contract on record is No. 951018
\neffective from 04.07.95 and another contract with the same buyer is
\ntitled as 95109 dt. 13.08.95. Such agreements are elaborate, spelling
\nout amount of compensation and other details. Under this contract
\nconsultancy was provided to M\/s. UNISYS Corpn. in USA for a total
\ncost of US$ 41717, This  contract has been signed by the Co. Secretary
\nof TUL (as it then was) and also by the official of UNISYS Corpn.\n<\/p>\n
The location of the project is shown as NEPZ India. A number of such
\ncontracts are on record as also a number of subsidiary contracts or
\ncommunications where the initial consultancy charges were later
\nincreased. These documents called “change requisition” refer to
\noriginal contracts and carry the approval of the buyer.\n<\/p>\n
27. It is not that these contracts were only on paper. From time to time
\nremittances were received from the buyer which fact was certified by
\nthe receiving banks. On record are a few examples. One advice dt.\n<\/p>\n
13.2.91 shows receipt of US$ 4 Lacs and the break up shows the sum
\nof US$ 1,86,622, there from pertaining to NEPZ. In several other
\ninvoices the beneficiary is shown as TUL in NEPZ.\n<\/p>\n
28. Before the Commissioner it was claimed that the details submitted in
\nterms of the public Notice No. 24-93 informed the customs as to the amount earned by consultancy services. The Commissioner in his
\nfindings has not commented on this information given from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
29. Thus we find that the conviction of the Commissioner that TIL had
\nfailed to establish a clear correlation between the system installed and
\nthe export earnings made was based on the failure to appreciate the
\nevidence placed before him.\n<\/p>\n
30. Shri Setalwad brings out the conditions in notification no. 339 of 85
\nCustoms dt. 21.11.85. He states that in terms of the notification the
\naccounting of the export etc. was to be made before the Development
\nCommissioner. The notification vide Clause (VII) enables the customs
\nto make a demand in certain circumstances. These circumstances are:-\n<\/p>\n
1. That the imported Capital Goods are not installed, used or re-exported
\nwithin the stipulated period from the date of import <\/p>\n
2. Not used in the manufacturing process for export.\n<\/p>\n
3. That the resultant goods are not exported within the stipulated period.\n<\/p>\n
31. It is his claim that this notification cannot become the base of
\ndemanding the duty on any Capital Goods where the conditions in the
\nnotification were not alleged to have been contravened. He however
\nmade submissions on merits; which we have discussed above. Since
\non merits we have found for the appellants, we need not go into the
\naspect or the interpretation of the notification.\n<\/p>\n
32. On the analysis above we hold that M\/s. TIL have discharged the
\nburden of showing performance in discharging the obligation cast
\nupon them for availment of the duty free import of the
\nHardware and the Software. The Appeal succeeds and is allowed
\nThe Impugned Order is set aside.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001 Equivalent citations: 2002 (81) ECC 86, 2002 (149) ELT 782 Tri Mumbai JUDGMENT JH Joglekar, Member (Technical) 1. M\/s. Tata Infotech Ltd. (TIL) are engaged in the business of development and export of computer software. […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nTata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 11 December, 2001 - 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\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 11 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-06T16:51:43+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-06T16:51:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2435,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 11 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-06T16:51:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 11 December, 2001 - 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\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 11 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-06T16:51:43+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-06T16:51:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001"},"wordCount":2435,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001","name":"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 11 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-06T16:51:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tata-infotech-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-central-excise-on-11-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tata Infotech Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise … on 11 December, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214615","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=214615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}