{"id":259778,"date":"2010-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-03T20:22:33","modified_gmt":"2017-01-03T14:52:33","slug":"commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010<\/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\/289\/2009\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \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. 289 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS SURAT-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDARSHAN\nPROCESSORS - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA 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: 18\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per : HONOURABLE
\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
\tLeave to amend as per the
\n\tdraft amendment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise & Customs, Surat-I has filed this tax Appeal
\n\tunder Section 35G<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to
\n\tformulate the following substantial questions of law for
\n\tdetermination and consideration of this Court;\n<\/p>\n
 (A)
\n\t\tWhether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
\n\t\tjustified and has committed substantial error of law in reducing
\n\t\tthe mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11AC<\/a> of the Central
\n\t\tExcise Act, 1944 to the extent of 25% of the amount of duty on the
\n\t\tground that the entire duty amount was deposited before issuance of
\n\t\tshow cause notice without satisfaction of first and second proviso
\n\t\tto Section-11AC of the said Act ?\n<\/p>\n
(B)
\n\t\t Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
\n\t\tis justified and has committed substantial error of law in placing
\n\t\treliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi
\n\t\tHigh Court in the case of CCE vs. Malbro Appliances
\n\t\tP. Ltd<\/a>., reported in 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Del)\/ 2007(208) ELT 503
\n\t\t(Delhi) & in case of K.P. Pouches P. Ltd., reported in 2008
\n\t\t(85) RLT (483) (Delhi)\/ 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del) ?\n<\/p>\n
(C)
\n\t\t Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
\n\t\tis justified and has committed substantial error of law in not
\n\t\tholding that the penalty leviable under Section 11AC<\/a> of the Act
\n\t\tequivalent to the amount of duty is mandatory or not and whether
\n\t\tthere is discretion conferred in the matter of quantum of penalty
\n\t\t?\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard Mr. R. J. Oza,
\n\tlearned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the
\n\torder passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the time of hearing of
\n\tthis Tax Appeal Mr.Oza reframed the substantial questions of law
\n\twhich are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 (a)
\n\t\tWhether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t\t11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be extended to such
\n\t\tperson who has not paid amount of interest determined by the
\n\t\tadjudicating authority payable under Section 11AB<\/a> of the Central
\n\t\tExcise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\t\t Whether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t\t11AC<\/a> of the Central Excise act, 1944 can be extended to such person
\n\t\twho has paid, before issuance of show cause notice only duty
\n\t\tdetermined by the adjudicating authority payable under Section
\n\t\t11A(2)<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\t\tWhether the adjudicating authority is statutorily obliged to set
\n\t\tout in his order the availability of benefit of reduced penalty
\n\t\tprescribed under proviso to Section 11AC<\/a> of the Central Excise Act,
\n\t\t1944 and to give option to such person liable for penalty under
\n\t\tSection 11AC<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\n\t\t Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
\n\t\tis justified and has committed substantial error of law in placing
\n\t\treliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the
\n\t\tcase of CCE v. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd<\/a>., reported in 2007 (79) RLT
\n\t\t109 (Del) \/ 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Delhi) and in case of K.P.Pouches
\n\t\tP. Ltd., reported in 2008 (85) RLT (483) (Delhi)\/ 2008(228) ELT 31
\n\t\t(Del)?\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\n\t\t Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be
\n\t\tan order in accordance with law?\n<\/p>\n
(f)
\n\t\t Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case the
\n\t\tTribunal has committed substantial error of law in reducing penalty
\n\t\tto 25% of the duty amount on the respondent ?\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza submitted that the
\n\tTribunal has not recorded any reasons setting out facts of the case
\n\tof the respondent and has mechanically passed order extending
\n\tbenefit of reduced penalty on the respondent. He has further
\n\tsubmitted that the team of Central Excise Officers had carried
\n\tsearch of the respondent’s premise on 7.11.2001 and detected evasion
\n\tof Central Excise duty payable by the respondent as on the date of
\n\tthe said search. The respondent having faced with the situation,
\n\tdeposited sum of Rs.5,15,704\/- between 17.11.2001 to 20.6.2002. The
\n\tshow cause notice was issued on 20.5.2005. The adjudicating
\n\tauthority has passed order dated 29.3.2006 demanding duty of
\n\tRs.5,15,704\/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.2 lacs under Section
\n\t11AC<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant preferred Appeal
\n\tand the Appellate Commissioner by his order dated 28.9.2007 allowed
\n\tthe Appeal of the appellant and imposed penalty equivalent to duty
\n\tamount on the respondent. The respondent preferred Appeal against
\n\tthe order of the Appellate Commissioner of enhancement of penalty
\n\tand the said Appeal is allowed and penalty imposed on the respondent
\n\tis reduced at 25% of the duty by the Tribunal by order dated
\n\t19.8.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza has submitted that
\n\tthe respondent has not complied with the preconditions for availment
\n\tof benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC<\/a> of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, the impugned order of the
\n\tTribunal is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza further submitted
\n\tthat the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of  K. P.
\n\tPouches (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) ELT  31 (Del),
\n\tcannot be applied to the case of the
\n\trespondent inasmuch as in the case of  K.P.
\n\tPouches (P) Ltd., (Supra)
\n\tthe adjudicating authority has not ordered recovery of interest
\n\tunder Section 11AB<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because in the
\n\tsaid case the assessee had deposited total amount of duty payable
\n\tunder Section 11A(2)<\/a> of the Act on the date of detection of evasion
\n\tof duty itself. He has further submitted that the decision in the
\n\tcase of  Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., reported in
\n\t2007 (208) ELT 503 (Del),
\n\talso cannot be applied because the facts of the case on hand are not
\n\tidentical to the facts of the case of the assessee in the  Malbro
\n\tAppliances P. Ltd., (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the contrary, in view of settled proposition laid down by the
\n\tPunjab and Haryana Court in the case of  Machino
\n\tMontell (I) Ltd., reported in 2006(4) STR 177 (P & H)
\n\tas well as judgments of the Apex Court in the case
\n\tof  Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills,
\n\t reported in 2009(238) ELT 3 (SC), Dharmendra Textile
\n\tProcessors, reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tand
\n\tdecisions of the Tribunal in the case of  Jawala
\n\tSteels Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (238) ELT 694 (Tri   Kolkata),
\n\tand   Ponneri Steel Industries, reported in 2009
\n\t(238) ELT 295 (Tri   Chennai)
\n\tand such other cases, the Tribunal was required to allow department
\n\tto levy penalty on the respondent for the amount equivalent to his
\n\tduty liability and pass order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza
\n\thas further submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is in
\n\tdisregard of the law laid down by this Court in Tax Appeal No.140 of
\n\t2008 and Special Civil Application No.22931 of 2005 and such other
\n\tjudgments, which obligate upon the Tribunal to record cogent reasons
\n\tin support of conclusion arrived at by him in passing the final
\n\torder. In support of this submission
\n\tMr.Oza also relied on the following
\n\tdecisions  (I) Coats Viyella India Ltd., Vs.
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, 2004 (133) ELT 229 (SC) (ii) TATA
\n\tEngineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Vs. Collector of Central
\n\tExcise, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise
\n\tVs. Wimco Ltd., 2007 (217) ELT 3 (SC) (iv) Commissioner of Central
\n\tExicse Vs. GTC Industries Ltd., 2008 (228) 505 (SC) (v) Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Srikumar Agencies 2008 (232) 577 (SC) (vi)
\n\tStead Fast Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 (12)
\n\tELT 744 (Guj.).\n<\/p>\n
\t We
\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mr.Oza and also perused very
\n\tminutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of
\n\tfact, all these questions reframed by Mr.Oza are different facets of
\n\tthe main question as to whether the Tribunal is justified in
\n\treducing the penalty to 25% of the
\n\tduty leviable on the respondent. All these
\n\taspects of the main question are already considered by this Court in
\n\tits order dated 18.11.2009 in the case of  Messers
\n\tExotic Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal
\n\tNo.572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942
\n\tof 2008, in the case of Commissioner of Central Exicse & Customs
\n\tVs. Rama Synsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21.1.2010.
\n\tThis Court after considering the decision of  Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (79)
\n\t  RLT 109 (Delhi), Union of India Vs. Dharmendra
\n\tTextiles, 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), Union of India Vs. Rajasthan
\n\tSpinning & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), K. P. Pouches
\n\t(P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi),
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak Vs. J. R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.,
\n\t2009 (238) ELT 209,
\n\thas taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal
\n\tretaining the penalty of 25% of the duty
\n\tamount seems to be quite justified.  For the reasons recorded in the
\n\tsaid two judgments, we do not feel it necessary to take any
\n\tdifferent view in this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\n\tMr.Oza has made two more submissions in this Tax Appeal.  He has
\n\temphatically stated that the respondent has not complied with
\n\tpre-condition for availment of benefit of reduced penalty under
\n\tproviso to Section 11AC<\/a> of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the
\n\tfirst proviso, the duty amount was not paid with interest and even
\n\tthe reduced penalty of 25% is not deposited by the respondent within
\n\t30 days from the date of such determination, as required under
\n\tsecond proviso to Section 11AC<\/a> of the Act.  So far as second issue
\n\tis concerned, Mr.Oza submitted that the adjudicating authority is
\n\tnot under any statutory obligation to set out in its order the
\n\tavailability of benefit of reduced
\n\tpenalty prescribed under proviso to Section
\n\t11AC<\/a> of the Central Excise Act and to give an option to such person
\n\tliable for penalty under that Section. Both these issues were dealt
\n\twith by this Court in Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal
\n\tNo.869 of 2007 decided on 18.11.2009. It is also important to note
\n\tthat the adjudicating authority has not calculated the interest
\n\tneither in the order-in-original nor even thereafter. It is,
\n\ttherefore, too much to expect from the respondent assessee to pay
\n\tthe interest alongwith the duty amount in absence of such
\n\tcalculation of interest. As far as statutory obligation of the
\n\tadjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department
\n\titself has issued Circular on 22.5.2008 wherein it is clarified that
\n\tin all cases wherein penalty under Section 11AC<\/a> of the Act is
\n\timposed the provisions contained in the first and second proviso of
\n\tSection 11AC<\/a> should be mandatorily mentioned in the
\n\torder-in-original
\n\titself by the adjudicating authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is, therefore, not open for the revenue to agitate this issue
\n\tbefore the Court in contradiction of the Circular issued by the
\n\tCentral Excise Department. This Court in  Messers
\n\tExotic Associates (Supra)
\n\thas
\n\tdirected the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order giving
\n\toption to the assessee to pay the duty amount within 30 days by
\n\tmaking it explicitly clear in the order itself that if the assessee
\n\t wants to avail such option he is permitted to do so.  In the case
\n\ton hand since the duty amount has already been paid by the
\n\trespondent assessee and if the interest and\/or reduced penalty of
\n\t25% were not paid by the respondent assessee, the adjudicating
\n\tauthority may send a communication to the respondent assessee
\n\tindicating therein that the particular amount of interest and\/or 25%
\n\tof the penalty of the duty amount is not paid by the respondent
\n\tassessee and hence if the assessee wants to avail
\n\tthe benefit of the reduced penalty of 25%,
\n\tsuch amount of interest and\/or penalty of 25% should be paid within
\n\t30 days from the date of receipt of such communication, failing
\n\twhich they would be liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC<\/a>
\n\tequivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\n\tparting, we observe that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
\n\tsaid to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The authorities
\n\tcited by Mr.Oza in support of his submission that a non-speaking
\n\torder is passed by the Tribunal and hence it deserves to be
\n\tdismissed, were duly considered by us and we are of the view that
\n\tthey are not applicable to the facts of the present case.  The
\n\tTribunal while dismissing the Departmental Appeal observed that the
\n\tquantum of the penalty is to the extent at around 25% of the duty
\n\tamount and does not call for any interference.  The Tribunal is
\n\ttaking consistent
\n\tview in the matters of penalty levied
\n\tunder Section 11AC<\/a> and when the duty amount is paid before issuance
\n\tof show cause notice, the penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty
\n\tamount. If the duty amount with interest is not paid in time and
\n\teven reduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount is not paid in time
\n\tand option is not given to the respondent assessee, we have taken
\n\tthe view that such option should be given to the assessee and period
\n\tof 30 days would commence from the date of giving such option. In
\n\tthis view of the matter, no interference is called for in the order
\n\tof the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t Subject to the above
\n\tclarification this Tax Appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          ( K. A. PUJ, J.)
\n(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 (Del)? on 18 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/289\/2009 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 289 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-259778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 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-del-on-18-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-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=\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-03T14:52:33+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=\"11 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-del-on-18-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-03T14:52:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2143,\"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-del-on-18-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-03T14:52:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 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-del-on-18-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-03T14:52:33+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-03T14:52:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010"},"wordCount":2143,"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-del-on-18-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010","name":"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-03T14:52:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-del-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs (Del)? on 18 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259778","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=259778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259778\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}