{"id":56783,"date":"2008-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2"},"modified":"2015-07-07T12:14:28","modified_gmt":"2015-07-07T06:44:28","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\/27\/2008\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. 27 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER,\nCENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAMBIKA\nINDUSTRIES - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMTM HAKIM for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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 D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\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\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/10\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HON&#8217;BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant Revenue has challenged the order dated 5.6.2006 passed by<br \/>\nthe Customs, Excise &amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal<br \/>\nBench, at Mumbai (the Tribunal) in appeal of respondent assessee and<br \/>\norder dated 5.12.2006 passed by the Tribunal in Rectification of<br \/>\nMistake Application filed by the appellant revenue, by proposing the<br \/>\nfollowing questions :\n<\/p>\n<p> [a]\t\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Tribunal is justified in rendering a finding that the benefit of<br \/>\ndeemed credit under the relevant Notification No.6\/2002-CE dated<br \/>\n1.3.2002 cannot be denied specially when the assessee concerned<br \/>\nreceived bleached fabrics in its unit which are ineligible for<br \/>\nbenefit under the notification in terms of Explanation-3 thereof<br \/>\nwhich provides that the notification shall not apply where processed<br \/>\nfabrics itself are used as input for further processing?\n<\/p>\n<p>[b]\t\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Tribunal is justified in applying the Notification No.6\/2002-CE,<br \/>\ndated 1.3.2002 despite Explanation-3 which stipulates that provisions<br \/>\nof the said notification shall not apply where processed fabrics<br \/>\nitself is used as an input for further processing?\n<\/p>\n<p>[c]\t\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Tribunal is justified in recording a finding that the factum of<br \/>\nreceipt of grey fabrics by the respondent which was allegedly sent<br \/>\nfor job work was not challenged by the revenue despite finding and<br \/>\nevidence to the contrary and despite the respondent having accepted<br \/>\nthat they were receiving bleached fabrics?\n<\/p>\n<p>[d]\t\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Tribunal was justified in dismissing the rectification of mistake<br \/>\napplication filed by the department on the ground that such<br \/>\napplication would not be maintainable for re-appreciating the case on<br \/>\nmerits and would be maintainable only for correcting the mistake only<br \/>\nof the nature of clerical and arithmetic?\n<\/p>\n<p>[e]\t\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent assessee filed claim for availing of deemed credit which<br \/>\nwas adjudicated by the adjudicating officer after issuing show cause<br \/>\nnotice and decided in favour of respondent assessee.  The revenue<br \/>\nchallenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) and succeeded.<br \/>\nThe assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.  After<br \/>\nhearing the parties, the Tribunal re-produced extract from the show<br \/>\ncause notice issued to the respondent assessee and thereafter,<br \/>\nrecorded the following findings :\n<\/p>\n<p> [3.5]\tIn<br \/>\nthe instant case, the noticee had received the grey fabrics, which<br \/>\nexempted from payment of duty (thus credit of duty deemed to have<br \/>\nbeen paid declared input viz. Yarn, could not be availed), from<br \/>\nmerchant exporter.  The grey fabrics were being sent directly to the<br \/>\njob worker for process of mercerizing and bleaching.  The mercerizing<br \/>\nand bleaching process were carried out without the aid of power,<br \/>\nhence, processed fabrics was exempted from payment of duty, thus<br \/>\ncredit of duty deemed to have been paid could not be availed by the<br \/>\njob worker&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\nwould indicate that the appellant had received the grey fabrics and<br \/>\nthe same were sent for job work, since this fact has not been<br \/>\nchallenged by the Revenue, before the Commissioner (Appeals), we have<br \/>\nto go on the footing that what was received by the processor, who are<br \/>\nthe appellants herein, was grey fabrics which was sent out for<br \/>\nbleaching and mercerizing.  Therefore, prima facie, we cannot deny<br \/>\nthe benefits of deemed credit under the relevant notification as<br \/>\ngranted by the Deputy Commissioner.  We find that this fact whether<br \/>\ngrey fabrics were received or it was mercerized and bleached fabrics<br \/>\nthat were received are issues which are being contended before us<br \/>\nsince prima facie we find that grey fabrics were admitted and not to<br \/>\nhave been challenged, as having been received as were found by the<br \/>\noriginal authority, we cannot deny the benefit of notification,<br \/>\nhowever, keeping in mind the other issues raised by the learned<br \/>\nadvocate for the appellants, as regards the eligibility, we do not<br \/>\narrive at any findings thereon since, we are intending to remand<br \/>\nthese matters back to the original authority to determine and grant<br \/>\nthe credit, if grey fabrics were received by the processors and<br \/>\nthereafter sent for job work of bleaching and mercerizing even<br \/>\nwithout physical receipts, and bleached and mercerized fabrics were<br \/>\nthereafter received back for further processing.  The objection of<br \/>\ncotton fabrics not being mentioned in notification No.214\/86 and the<br \/>\nprocedure for job working not being intimated and permission taken<br \/>\nare not issues on which the benefits of job work could be denied,<br \/>\nfollowing the decision in the case of M.Tex V\/s CCE 2001 (136)<br \/>\nELT-73, approved by the apex court as reported in 2002 (146) ELT<br \/>\nA-309.\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]\tIn<br \/>\nthis view of the matter, we would set aside the orders in appeal<br \/>\nNo.1613-1625 and remand the matter back to the original authority to<br \/>\nredetermine and also arrived at a finding on the other submission<br \/>\nwhich the appellant may like to raise and thereafter determine the<br \/>\neligibility to the quantum of Modvat credit eligible and the refund<br \/>\ndue in these cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nrevenue is aggrieved by the observation made by the Tribunal that the<br \/>\nfact that the assessee had received grey fabrics and same were sent<br \/>\nfor job work was not challenged by revenue before Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals), whereas in fact, according to the revenue, the said fact<br \/>\nhad been challenged.  The revenue, therefore, preferred a<br \/>\nRectification of Mistake Application before the Tribunal which came<br \/>\nto be rejected by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellant revenue has submitted that the<br \/>\nTribunal has committed an error in remanding the matter after<br \/>\nobserving that the revenue had accepted the fact of the assessee<br \/>\nbeing in receipt of grey fabrics instead of assessee being in receipt<br \/>\nof mercerized and bleached fabrics and therefore, the order of remand<br \/>\nwould prove futile as the revenue would not be in a position to<br \/>\ndecide the said issue afresh.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAs<br \/>\ncan be seen from the aforesaid extract of the Tribunal&#8217;s order, it is<br \/>\napparent that the Tribunal has merely recorded prima facie opinion,<br \/>\nbut at the same time, the Tribunal has also observed after using the<br \/>\nterm  however , that the matter is remanded back to the original<br \/>\nauthority to redetermine.  Therefore, it is not possible to state<br \/>\nthat, any question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law, arises from the impugned order of the<br \/>\nTribunal dated 5.6.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tInsofar<br \/>\nas the second order of the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has<br \/>\nmerely stated that, in a Rectification of Mistake Application, the<br \/>\nTribunal is not entitled to re-appreciate the case on merits and<br \/>\nthus, rejected the application.  In relation to this finding, suffice<br \/>\nit to state that the position in law is well settled: The Tribunal is<br \/>\nentitled to correct an apparent error on record.  If the Tribunal has<br \/>\ncome to a conclusion that no error apparent on record exists, the<br \/>\nHigh Court cannot determine merely on the basis of an application<br \/>\nmoved by the revenue that there is an error apparent on record which<br \/>\nthe Tribunal ought to have rectified.  There has to be some evidence<br \/>\nbeyond an application.  Therefore, it is not possible to state that,<br \/>\nany question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law, arises from the impugned order of the<br \/>\nTribunal dated 5.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tEven<br \/>\notherwise, as noted hereinbefore, the earlier order of Tribunal dated<br \/>\n5.6.2006 does not operate to the prejudice of any side.  Accordingly,<br \/>\nthe appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t(D.A.Mehta,J)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p>   \t\t           \t(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)<\/p>\n<p>arg<\/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 The on 22 October, 2008 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/27\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 27 of 2008 ===================================================== COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus AMBIKA INDUSTRIES &#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-56783","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 The on 22 October, 2008 - 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-the-on-22-october-2008-2\" \/>\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 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-07T06:44:28+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=\"6 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-october-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-07T06:44:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1236,\"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-october-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-07T06:44:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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 October, 2008 - 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-the-on-22-october-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-07T06:44:28+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-07T06:44:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2"},"wordCount":1236,"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-october-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2","name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-07T06:44:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-october-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/56783","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=56783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}