{"id":39781,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-23T18:39:32","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T13:09:32","slug":"commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Cony on 17 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\/2592\/2009\t 11\/ 13\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 2592 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCONY\nENGINEERING - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYN RAVANI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per : HONOURABLE
\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad has filed this Tax Appeal
\n\tunder Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to
\n\tformulate the following substantial question of law for the
\n\tdetermination and consideration of this Court :-\n<\/p>\n
 Whether the CESTAT
\ncommitted error in interpreting proviso of Section 11AC of the
\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 by offering to an assessee to deposit amount
\nof interest and penalty within 30 days of its order to avail benefit
\nof reduced penalty at 25% of duty, though CESTAT has not
\nre-determined the quantum of duty ?\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tMr. Y. N. Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue
\n\tand perused the orders passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbrief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the adjudicating
\n\tauthority had passed an order in original on 28.09.2005 wherein he
\n\tconfirmed the demand of duty of Rs.8,800\/- + Rs.5,19,848\/-. The
\n\tpenalty of Rs.2,50,000\/-  was imposed under Section 11AC read with
\n\tRule-25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was also ordered to
\n\trecover the interest under Section-11AB of of Central Excise Act,
\n\t1944.  The respondent assessee has challenged this order before the
\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 26.6.2006 upheld the
\n\tdemand to the tune of Rs.5,19,848\/- + Rs.8,800\/- and set aside the
\n\tpenalty of Rs.2,50,000\/- imposed under Section-11AC of the Act. It
\n\tis also relevant to note that the Department being aggrieved by the
\n\torder-in-original dated 28.9.2005 also filed an Appeal before the
\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) for enhancement of penalty under Section-11AC
\n\tof the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated
\n\t28.9.2007 held that once an order-in-original has been considered in
\n\tits totality the Revenue is not justified to challenge any part of
\n\tsuch order before the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved by the
\n\torder of Commissioner (Appeals) passed in Appeal filed by the
\n\tassessee, the Revenue filed second appeal before the Tribunal.
\n\tSimilarly the Revenue has also filed second appeal before the
\n\tTribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in
\n\tthe Appeal filed by the Revenue. The tribunal vide its order dated
\n\t11.11.2007\/22.9.2008 decided both  Appeals filed by the Department
\n\twherein, while restoring the penalty imposed by the original
\n\tauthority, the same was reduced to Rs.1,29,962\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\tfurther aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue
\n\tfiled Tax Appeal No.1933 of 2008 before this Court for enhancement
\n\tof penalty equal to duty evaded under Section 11AC of the Central
\n\tExcise Act.  This Court vide its order dated 23.06.2009 decided the
\n\tsaid tax appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a
\n\tdirection to decide the issue afresh in light of the Apex Court
\n\tdecision in the case of M\/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors, 2008
\n\t(231) ELT 3 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant
\n\tto the order of this Court, the Tribunal decided the appeal and by
\n\tits common order passed in 17 matters on 15\/16\/17.07.2009, has
\n\tenhanced the penalty equal to the duty confirmed against the
\n\trespondent   assessee. However, relying upon the judgment of the
\n\tPunjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise, Rohtak V\/s. J.R. Fabrics Private Limited, 2009 (238)
\n\tELT 209 (P&H) set aside the order passed by the adjudicating
\n\tauthority with a direction to give an option to the respondent
\n\tassessee to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of 30 days of
\n\tthe communication of the order, in which case the penalty shall
\n\tstand restricted to 25% of the duty amount.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis this order which is under challenge in the present tax appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tRavani has submitted that in the remand matter, the Tribunal has
\n\twrongly passed an order by incorrect interpretation of the decision
\n\tof the Apex Court in the case of M\/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors
\n\t(Supra).  He has further submitted that the Tribunal can give such
\n\toption to the assessee only on those cases, where the duty demanded
\n\tto be payable has reduced or increased by it, which is clearly
\n\tstipulated in the Central Excise Act.  Third and fourth proviso to
\n\tSection 11AC is regarding giving benefit of reduced penalty of 25%
\n\tof the duty, in case the duty determined is changed (either
\n\tincreased or decreased) by the appellate authorities. However, in
\n\tthe present case, the Tribunal has not redetermined the quantum of
\n\tduty and, therefore, the Tribunal has no power to give the option to
\n\tpay reduced penalty of 25% of the duty within 30 days of
\n\tcommunication of its order to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tRavani has invited the attention of the Court to the recent Circular
\n\tdated 15.09.2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise &
\n\tCustoms, clarifying that in order to avail the benefit of 25%
\n\tpenalty, the duty, interest and penalty are required to be paid
\n\twithin 30 days of communication of the order passed by the
\n\tadjudicating authority.  The fourth proviso to Section 11AC
\n\tstipulates that wherever duty amount is increased at any appellate
\n\tstage, in that case, in order to avail the benefit of 25% penalty,
\n\tthe assessee is required to pay differential amount within 30 days
\n\tof the passing of the order by the appellate authority.  A combined
\n\treading of all the four proviso would, therefore, make it clear that
\n\tthe benefit of 25% penalty is applicable only when the assessee has
\n\tpaid duty, interest and the reduced penalty within 30 days of
\n\tcommunication of the order passed by the adjudicating authority.
\n\tMr. Ravani has, therefore, submitted that the intention of
\n\tlegislation is to provide the option of reduced penalty when first
\n\ttime issue is adjudicated by original authority.  It has never
\n\tintended to provide option at first appellate stage or even by the
\n\tTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mr.
\n\tRavani and also perused very minutely the order passed by the
\n\tauthorities below. As a matter of fact, all these submissions urged
\n\tby Mr. Ravani were already considered by this Court in its order
\n\tdated 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 Excise & 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)     RLT
\n\t109 (Delhi), Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textiles, 2008 (231) ELT
\n\t3 (SC), Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills,
\n\t2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), K. P. Pouches (P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India,
\n\t2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi), Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak
\n\tVs. J. R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 2009  (238) ELT 209,
\n\thas taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal retaining
\n\tthe penalty of 25% of the duty amount seems to be quite justified.
\n\tFor the reasons recorded in the said two judgments, we do not feel
\n\tit necessary to take any different view in this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave an occasion to deal with similar such submission made on behalf
\n\tof Revenue with regard to non-compliance of the pre-condition for
\n\tavailment of benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the first proviso, the
\n\tduty amount was not paid with interest
\n\tand even the reduced penalty of 25% was not deposited by the
\n\trespondent within 30 days from the date of such determination, as
\n\trequired under second proviso to Section 11AC of the Act.  Despite
\n\tthis, the Court has granted benefit of the Proviso by issuing
\n\tdirection to the adjudicating authority to give
\n\tan option to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\twith regard to the submission of Mr. Ravani that the adjudicating
\n\tauthority is not under any statutory obligation to set out in its
\n\torder, the availability of benefit of reduced penalty prescribed
\n\tunder proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and to give
\n\tan option to such person liable for penalty under that Section, was
\n\tconsidered by us in Tax Appeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal No.869
\n\tof 2007 decided on 18.11.2009. We have observed therein that the
\n\tadjudicating authority has not calculated the interest neither in
\n\tthe order-in-original nor even
\n\tthereafter. It is, therefore, too much to expect from the respondent\n<\/p>\n
\t– assessee to pay the interest alongwith the duty amount in absence
\n\tof such calculation of interest. As far as statutory obligation of
\n\tthe adjudicating authority is concerned, the Central Excise
\n\tDepartment itself has earlier issued
\n\tCircular on 22.5.2008 wherein it is clarified that in all cases
\n\twherein penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is imposed, the
\n\tprovisions contained in the first and second proviso of Section 11AC
\n\tshould be mandatorily mentioned in the order-in-original itself by
\n\tthe adjudicating authority. It is, therefore, not open for the
\n\trevenue to agitate this issue before the Court in contradiction of
\n\tthe Circular issued by the Central Excise Department. This Court in
\n\t Messers Exotic Associates (Supra)
\n\thas directed the
\n\tadjudicating authority to pass a fresh order giving option to the
\n\tassessee to pay the duty amount within 30 days by making it
\n\texplicitly clear in the
\n\torder itself that if the assessee   wants to avail such option he is
\n\tpermitted to do so.  In the case on hand, since the duty amount has
\n\talready been paid by the respondent – assessee and if the interest
\n\tand\/or reduced penalty of 25% were not paid by the respondent –
\n\tassessee, 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 the benefit of the
\n\treduced penalty of 25%, such amount of interest and\/or penalty of
\n\t25% should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of such
\n\tcommunication, failing which they would be liable to pay penalty
\n\tunder Section 11AC equivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince the order passed by
\n\tthe Tribunal is in accordance with the view taken by this Court,
\n\tthere is no question of considering the Circular issued by the
\n\tCentral Board of Indirect Taxes on which reliance was placed by Mr.
\n\tRavani.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe above view of the matter, we do not see any substance in this
\n\ttax appeal and no substantial question of law can be said to have
\n\tarisen out of the order of the Tribunal.  This appeal is, therefore,
\n\tsummarily dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
  [K. A. PUJ, J.] [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 Cony on 17 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/2592\/2009 11\/ 13 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 2592 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Appellant(s) Versus CONY ENGINEERING – Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR […]<\/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-39781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Cony on 17 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-cony-on-17-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 Cony on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-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=\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-23T13:09:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T13:09:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1725,\"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-cony-on-17-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T13:09:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 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:\\\/\\\/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 Cony on 17 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-cony-on-17-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-23T13:09:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T13:09:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010"},"wordCount":1725,"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-cony-on-17-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T13:09:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-cony-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Cony on 17 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:\/\/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\/39781","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=39781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}