{"id":250463,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-28T08:44:40","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T03:14:40","slug":"commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Ms.Justice Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   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\/284\/2009\t 5\/ 5\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. 284 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\n- Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPOLYCAB\nWIRES PRIVATE LIMITED &amp; 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMS AMEE\nYAJNIK for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) : 1 -\n2. \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\n                              and\n\t\t\n\t\n\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: 15\/09\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                                                   (Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\t\tCommissioner<br \/>\nof Central Excise and Customs, Vapi has filed this Tax Appeal under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/54762929\/\" id=\"a_1\">section 35G<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate<br \/>\nthe following substantial questions of law for determination and<br \/>\nconsideration of this Court:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">Whether<br \/>\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CESTAT is<br \/>\n\tjustified in the eye of law to re-calculate the demand of duty &amp;<br \/>\n\tInterest after applying of normal period of limitation, instead of<br \/>\n\tconfirmed demand under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excuse Act,<br \/>\n\t1944 &amp; chargeable Interest on the confirmed demand under <a href=\"\/doc\/23088775\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section<br \/>\n\t11AB<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as leviable on the goods<br \/>\n\tsupplied by the respondent to MSEB &amp; WBSEB during the period<br \/>\n\t2000-01\/2001-02?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">Whether<br \/>\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned CESTAT is<br \/>\n\tjustified in the eye of law in set-a-side of the mandatory equal<br \/>\n\tpenalty which has been imposed on the respondent under <a href=\"\/doc\/92590795\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 11AC<\/a><br \/>\n\tof the Central Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">2.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nMs. Amee Yajnik, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant<br \/>\nand perused the orders passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">3.\t\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts giving rise to the present Tax Appeal are that the<br \/>\nrespondent assessee is engaged in the manufacture of electric wires<br \/>\nand cables falling under Chapter 85 of the <a href=\"\/doc\/1469183\/\" id=\"a_3\">Central Excise Tariff Act<\/a>,<br \/>\n1985.  The dispute is in relation of supply of wires to M\/s.<br \/>\nMaharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and M\/s. West Bengal State<br \/>\nElectricity Board (WBSEB) by availing the benefit of exemption<br \/>\nNotification No.108\/95-CE.  The said Notification exempts goods<br \/>\nsupplied to projects which are financed by the World Bank, the Asian<br \/>\nDevelopment Bank or any international organisation, subject to<br \/>\nfulfillment of conditions enumerated therein.  One of the conditions<br \/>\nis that duty exemption certificate will be issued from the<br \/>\nappropriate officers of the project and countersigned by the<br \/>\nPrincipal Secretary.  Such exemption certificate was issued by the<br \/>\nTechnical Director and empowered officers of MSEB and countersigned<br \/>\nby the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra and the<br \/>\nsame was produced on record certifying  that the said<br \/>\nequipments\/materials were intended for use by MSEB in the above<br \/>\nprojects.  The said projects were financed by Japan Bank of<br \/>\nInternational Co-operation.  It is also mentioned in the said<br \/>\ncertificate that the same was being issued as per requirement under<br \/>\nthe Notification No.108\/95-CE dated 28th August, 1995.<br \/>\nSimilar certificates were issued by the West Bengal State Electricity<br \/>\nBoard signed by Chief Engineer and empowered officer and<br \/>\ncountersigned by the Principal Secretary from the Department of<br \/>\nPower, Government of West Bengal.  Based on the said certificates,<br \/>\nthe respondent availed the benefit of the Notification, after duly<br \/>\nfiling classification list. RT-12 returns were also filed, which were<br \/>\nassessed by the appropriate officers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">4.\t\tDespite<br \/>\nthese facts, proceedings were initiated against the respondent by way<br \/>\nof issuance of show-cause notice dated 29th April, 2002<br \/>\nalleging that Japan Bank for International Co-operation  is not an<br \/>\ninternational organisation in terms of the explanation attached to<br \/>\nNotification No.108\/95-CE and as such, projects financed by the said<br \/>\nBank are not entitled to duty-free goods and as such, benefit of<br \/>\nNotification No.108\/95-CE cannot be extended to the respondent.<br \/>\nAccordingly, demand was raised for the period 2000-01 and 2001-02.<br \/>\nThe said show-cause notice has culminated into the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs.50,96,621\/-<br \/>\nalongwith interest and imposition of identical amount of personal<br \/>\npenalty.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">5.\t\tThis<br \/>\norder was challenged in appeal before the Tribunal.  Initially, there<br \/>\nwas difference of opinion amongst the Technical Member as well as the<br \/>\nJudicial Member.  Therefore, the matter was referred to the third<br \/>\nMember.  The third Member, vide his order, held that the bonafides of<br \/>\nthe respondent could not have been doubted once the certificate was<br \/>\nsigned by the specified authority who requested the jurisdictional<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner to allow the exemption.  The third Member of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the respondent was<br \/>\nsupplying to other Government authorities where no such fault was<br \/>\nfound.  It was also noticed that the fact that the Japan Bank of<br \/>\nInternational Co-operation was not an international organisation<br \/>\napproved duly in terms of the explanation attached to Notification<br \/>\nNo.108\/95-CE was not readily forthcoming by any records to which the<br \/>\nrespondent had access and, therefore, he was dependent upon the<br \/>\nproject implementing authority and the Secretary to the State<br \/>\nGovernments who were in the better know of the facts.  It is also<br \/>\nobserved that the existence of the certificate is not being denied in<br \/>\nthe show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original. Considering all<br \/>\nthese facts, the third Member had come to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nfinding recorded by the Member (Judicial) in respect of issues<br \/>\nforming difference of opinion is just and proper and accordingly the<br \/>\ndirections issued to the effect that the demand of Rs.50,96,621\/-<br \/>\nplus interest is to be recalculated applying normal period of<br \/>\nlimitation and equivalent penalty under <a href=\"\/doc\/92590795\/\" id=\"a_4\">section 11AC<\/a> on the<br \/>\nrespondent assessee was liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">6.\t\tWe<br \/>\nhave considered the submissions made by Ms. Yajnik and also gone<br \/>\nthrough the orders passed by the authorities below. The Tribunal as a<br \/>\nmatter of fact found that the there was no suppression of facts and<br \/>\nhence, the conditions precedent under <a href=\"\/doc\/92590795\/\" id=\"a_5\">section 11AC<\/a> for the purpose of<br \/>\nlevy of penalty are not satisfied and hence, the Tribunal is<br \/>\njustified in setting aside the penalty levied under <a href=\"\/doc\/92590795\/\" id=\"a_6\">section 11AC<\/a> of<br \/>\nthe Act as well as issuing the direction to recalculate the demand<br \/>\nalongwith duty and interest by applying normal period of limitation.<br \/>\nWe do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal nor<br \/>\nis there any substantial question of law and hence, we dismiss this<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nK.A. Puj, J. )<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nHarsha Devani, J. )<\/p>\n<p>hki<\/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 Commissioner on 29 November, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Ms.Justice Harsha Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/284\/2009 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 284 of 2009 ========================================= COMMISSIONER &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus POLYCAB WIRES PRIVATE LIMITED &amp; 1 &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================= Appearance : [&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-250463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 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-commissioner-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-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=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T03:14:40+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=\"5 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-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T03:14:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":979,\"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-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T03:14:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 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 Commissioner on 29 November, 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-commissioner-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T03:14:40+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T03:14:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":979,"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-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T03:14:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-commissioner-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Commissioner on 29 November, 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\/250463","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=250463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}