{"id":243917,"date":"2010-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-31T07:54:18","modified_gmt":"2017-05-31T02:24:18","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/2157\/2009\t 8\/ 8\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. 2157 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\n- CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSWEET\nINDUSTRIES - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nNAYNABEN K GADHVI 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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 01\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)<\/p>\n
Leave
\n\tto add substantial questions of law as proposed vide the amendment.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthis appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the
\n\tAct), the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Vapi has
\n\tchallenged the order dated 13.8.2008 made by the Customs, Excise &
\n\tService Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), proposing the
\n\tfollowing three questions :\n<\/p>\n
“[1]\tWhether
\n\tor not the CESTAT is right in holding that M\/s Sweet Industries,
\n\tDaman is not required to pay
\n\tany interest on Cenvat Credit availed on input\/raw material
\n\tdestroyed in the fire accident & on Cenvat Credit availed on
\n\tinput\/raw material contained in the semi-finished goods destroyed in
\n\tthe fire accident?\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tWhether
\n\tthe Tribunal committed error in interpreting the provisions of
\n\tsection 11AB of the Central Excise Act and by further holding that
\n\tsection 11AB of the Act does not apply in case of delay in reversal
\n\tof wrongly availed Cenvat Credit?\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tWhether
\n\tthe Tribunal committed error in not appreciating aspect that Cenvat
\n\tCredit wrongly not reversed for long time is liable for interest?”\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trespondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of excisable
\n\tgoods. On account of a fire accident that took place on 26.1.2004 at
\n\tthe factory premises of the assessee, all the stock of finished
\n\tgoods, semi-finished goods, raw material and capital goods\/machinery
\n\twere destroyed. Subsequently, a show cause notice came to be issued
\n\tto the assessee proposing to recover Cenvat Credit of Rs.18,51,272\/-
\n\tavailed on machinery\/capital goods destroyed in the fire accident
\n\tunder Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (the Rules) read with
\n\tsection 11A of the Act, along with interest under section 11AB of
\n\tthe Act; demand of interest on delayed payment of duty on finished
\n\tgoods\/raw material\/raw material contained in semi-finished goods
\n\tdestroyed in the fire accident under
\n\tsection 11AB of the Act; demand of interest of Rs.58,435\/-
\n\ton delayed payment of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.6,38,393\/- under
\n\tsection 11AB of the Act in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules as well as
\n\timposition of penalty under Rule 13(2) of the Rules read with
\n\tsection 11AC of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tshow cause notice culminated into an order made by the adjudicating
\n\tauthority whereby the adjudicating authority dropped the demand for
\n\trecovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs.18,51,272\/-.  However, he directed
\n\trecovery of interest at appropriate rate under section 11AB of the
\n\tAct on delayed payment of duty on finished goods, Cenvat Credit
\n\tavailed on raw material destroyed in the fire accident and
\n\tsemi-finished goods destroyed in the fire accident, and confirmed
\n\tthe demand of interest of Rs.58,435\/-.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tassessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner
\n\t(Appeals) who vide the order dated 28.9.2006, dismissed the appeal.
\n\tThe Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was delay in payment of
\n\tduty on the part of the assessee.  Accordingly, interest at
\n\tappropriate rate under section 11AB of the Act was recoverable from
\n\tit. Being aggrieved, the assessee took the matter in second appeal
\n\tbefore the Tribunal and succeeded.\n<\/p>\n
Ms.\n<\/p>\n
\tNaynaben Gadhvi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue
\n\tsubmitted that though the assessee had reversed the Cenvat Credit
\n\tavailed on raw
\n\tmaterial as well as on raw material contained in semi-finished goods
\n\twhich were destroyed in the fire accident, the payment of duty and
\n\treversal of Cenvat Credit was not made in time as per the provisions
\n\tof the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In view of the delay, the
\n\tassessee was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of duty
\n\tor delayed reversal of Cenvat Credit under section 11AB of the Act.
\n\tAttention was invited to the impugned order of the Tribunal to
\n\tsubmit that the Tribunal has held that section 11AB of the Act would
\n\tbe applicable only in cases of non-levy or short levy of excise duty
\n\tor non-payment of duty by the due date as required under law and
\n\tthat section 11AB of the Act would not be applicable in the facts of
\n\tthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
Inviting
\n\tattention to rule 12 of the Rules, it was submitted that the
\n\tTribunal has lost sight of the said rule which provides that where
\n\tCenvat Credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been
\n\terroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be
\n\trecovered from the manufacturer and the provisions of sections 11A
\n\tand 11AB of the Act shall apply mutatis
\n\tmutandis
\n\tfor effecting such recoveries. It was submitted that the provisions
\n\tof section 11AB of the Act would, therefore, also be applicable in
\n\tcase where the Cenvat Credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or
\n\thas been erroneously refunded and as such the view taken by the
\n\tTribunal is erroneous and warrants interference.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tcan be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, before the
\n\tTribunal, on behalf of the assessee, interest liability on finished
\n\tgoods had been admitted. Insofar as the
\n\tinterest on the Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,25,844\/- reversed by the
\n\tassessee on inputs contained in semi-finished goods destroyed in
\n\tfire, it was submitted that in the light of the decision of the
\n\tLarger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim
\n\tIndustries v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Indore,
\n\tthe<\/a> assessee was not even required to reverse the credit taken on
\n\tinputs contained in semi-finished goods destroyed in the fire since
\n\tthe requirement of Cenvat Credit Rules that the inputs should have
\n\tbeen used in manufacture, had been fulfilled. It was submitted that,
\n\ttherefore, the demand of interest would not arise. The Tribunal
\n\tafter considering various submissions advanced on behalf of the
\n\tassessee, has held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“[4]\tAfter
\n\tconsidering the submissions of both the sides, I find considerable
\n\tforce in the arguments advanced by the ld. Advocate on behalf of the
\n\tappellants.  In view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of M\/s
\n\tGrasim Industries cited above, there is no liability of interest on
\n\tRs.1,25,844\/- Cenvat Credit reversed by them since the inputs have
\n\tbeen issued for manufacture and were contained in semi-finished
\n\tgoods and there is no dispute on this aspect.  As regards interest
\n\ton Cenvat Credit of Rs.19,06,198\/- on the inputs lying as such and
\n\tdestroyed in fire accident, in view of the fact that section
\n\t11AB applied to only in cases or non-levy or short levy of excise
\n\tduty or non-payment of duty by the due date as required under law,
\n\tsection 11AB is clearly not applicable.  I also find that interest
\n\tis not demandable
\n\tunder any of the provisions available and relevant to the facts of
\n\tthe case.  Therefore, the demand of interest on this amount also
\n\tcannot be upheld.  Coming to the Cenvat Credit of Rs.6,38,393\/-
\n\ttaken on capital goods, in view of the fact that the credit was not
\n\tat all utilized as mentioned in the appeal memo submitted by the
\n\tappellants, and in view of the decisions of the Tribunal cited above
\n\tthat interest is not payable if the credit has not been utilized,
\n\tthe demand for interest on this amount also has to be set aside.  I
\n\tam not going into the merits of other contentions since the benefit
\n\tof non-levy of interest on this ground alone is sufficient.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tinsofar as the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority on the
\n\tinterest on delayed payment of duty on finished goods is concerned,
\n\tthe assessee had accepted the liability. As regards the interest of
\n\tCenvat Credit reversed by the assessee on inputs which had been used
\n\tfor manufacture and were contained in semi-finished goods, in the
\n\tlight of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the
\n\tcase of Grasim Industries (supra), the assessee was not even
\n\trequired to reverse the credit taken on the inputs contained in
\n\tsemi-finished goods destroyed in the fire. In the circumstances,
\n\twhen the assessee was not even required
\n\tto reverse the credit taken on the inputs contained in the
\n\tsemi-finished goods, the question of paying interest on late
\n\treversal of credit taken would not arise.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar
\n\tas the recovery of interest on the amount of Cenvat Credit of
\n\tRs.19,06,198\/- reversed by the assessee lying as such, the Tribunal
\n\thas held that the provisions of section 11AB of the Act would not be
\n\tapplicable inasmuch as the said provision can be invoked only in
\n\tcases of non-levy or short-levy of excise duty or non-payment of
\n\tduty by due date as required under law.  In this regard, it is
\n\tclarified that this Court does not agree with the reasoning adopted
\n\tby the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the revenue appears to be
\n\tjustified in contending that while holding so, the Tribunal has
\n\tfailed to consider the provisions of rule 12 of the Rules, which
\n\tlays down that the provisions of section 11A and 11AB of the Act
\n\tshall apply mutatis
\n\tmutandis
\n\tfor effecting such recoveries where Cenvat Credit has been taken or
\n\tutilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded. However, for the
\n\treasons that follow, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the
\n\timpugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
Rule
\n\t12 of the Rules provides that where Cenvat Credit has been taken or
\n\tutilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along
\n\twith interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer and the
\n\tprovisions of sections 11A and 11AB of the Act shall apply mutatis
\n\tmutandis
\n\tfor effecting such recoveries.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe facts of the present case, the assessee had availed of Cenvat
\n\tCredit to the extent of 50% of the Cenvat Credit in respect of the
\n\tcapital goods availed by it after the fire accident.  Since, the
\n\tassessee was not entitled to avail
\n\tCenvat Credit after the accident, it was held that the assessee was
\n\tliable to pay interest of Rs.58,435\/- under rule 12 of the Rules
\n\tread with section 11B of the Act for taking undue and illegal
\n\tfinancial benefit in the form of wrong availment and wrong
\n\tutilization of the credit.  In this regard, before the Tribunal, on
\n\tbehalf of the assessee, it had been pointed out that though Cenvat
\n\tCredit of Rs.6,38,393\/- had been availed by the assessee in April
\n\t2004, the credit taken was never utilized till the date of reversal
\n\tand as such, there was no liability to pay interest. The Tribunal
\n\thas held that in view of the fact that the credit was not at all
\n\tutilized, in the light of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal; the
\n\tassessee was not liable to pay interest if the credit had not been
\n\tutilized. The aforesaid view of the Tribunal is in line with the
\n\tview taken by the apex court in the case of Commissioner
\n\tof C.Ex., Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.,<\/a>
\n\t2007 (215) ELT 3 (S.C.) wherein the assessee therein had reversed
\n\tthe entry before utilization, it was held that the same amounts to
\n\tnot taking credit.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe circumstances, the assessee having reversed the credit taken by
\n\tit prior to utilization the same would amount to not taking credit
\n\tand as such the question of liability to pay any interest thereon
\n\twould not
\n\tarise. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the
\n\tassessee was not liable to pay interest thereon.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe light of the aforesaid discussion, though the Court is not in
\n\tagreement with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal as regards the
\n\tapplicability of the provisions of section
\n\t11AB of the Act, for the reasons aforesaid, the Court does not find
\n\tany reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. In
\n\tthe circumstances, in the absence of any question of law, much less,
\n\ta substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
[H.B.ANTANI,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010 Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/2157\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 2157 of 2009 ========================================= COMMISSIONER – CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS – Appellant(s) Versus SWEET INDUSTRIES – Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance […]<\/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-243917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010 - 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-on-22-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 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-31T02:24:18+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=\"10 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-22-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-31T02:24:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1955,\"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-22-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-31T02:24:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-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 22 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 22 December, 2010 - 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-on-22-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-31T02:24:18+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-31T02:24:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010"},"wordCount":1955,"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-22-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010","name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-31T02:24:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-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 22 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\/243917","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=243917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}