{"id":60422,"date":"1985-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985"},"modified":"2015-12-31T18:32:05","modified_gmt":"2015-12-31T13:02:05","slug":"hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985","title":{"rendered":"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi<\/div>\n
Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 (6) ECR 740 Tri Delhi, 1986 (24) ELT 61 Tri Del<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)<\/p>\n
1. As observed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, in his order dated 14-10-1980 the point for determination in the present dispute is whether the stock of excisable goods manufactured by the appellant, M\/s. HMM Ltd., before the enhanced rates of excise duty came into force, but cleared after such enhancement had taken effect, are liable to pay excise duty at the enhanced rate or at the old rate as prevailed on the date of manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
2.    We  have  heard  Shri A.C. Gulati, Advocate, for the appellants, and Shri K.C. Sachar, SDR, for the department.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The  argument   of Shri  Gulati  is  that for imposition of excise duty the chargeable event is manufacture   and,  therefore,   it  is the  rate of duty that  was   in  force  on   the  date  of manufacture  that would be relevant for purposes  of   imposition  as  well  as  collection  of excise  duty.    He   in fact submitted that even if the rate of duty on the date of clearance  is lesser  than the rate of duty as was in force on the date of manufacture, the  duty   payable at the time of clearance would be not at the lesser rate but at  the higher  rate. He  submitted   that  even if the goods became wholly exempt from payment of duty on the date of clearance, still the duty would be payable at such time  of clearance at the rate that was prevalent on the date of manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Shri  Sachar  contested  this  proposition  and. relied on the words of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, to submit that while chargeability   would be  according   to  the  law   as   prevailed  on  the  date  of   manufacture,  the computation  of duty  would,   under the provisions of Rule 9A, be at the rate as was prevalent on the date of clearance.    On this question there are  several decisions  of the High   Courts as well as the Supreme Court, all of which have been considered by this Tribunal in its decision in  Vazir Sultan   Tobacco Company  Ltd.   v. Collector  of   Central Excise 1985  (21)   ELT  757. In the said decision reference had been made to an earlier order of the Tribunal itself in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Parmali Wallace Ltd. 1985 (21) ELT 231 in which also all these several decisions had been taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Shri  Gulati  himself referred to the  decision  in the Vazir Sultan’s case, but stated that he was not relying on the  said decision but referred  to the  same only  with reference to the observations made therein, especially in paragraphs 29 and 36.   When it was pointed out to  him   that his contention would make  the provisions  of Rule  9A entirely nugatory, he stated that it would not be so, and that the provision will have to be merely read  down  as not  applicable  in  particular  circumstances,  as  in  the present case, and not always.   But this submission does not appear  to be  correct,  since  Rule  9A lays down that the rate of duty payable on the goods would be  the  rate  as prevailed  on the  date of clearance (as distinguished from the rate that would have been prevalent as on the date  of manufacture),   Therefore,  acceptance of the proposition put forward by Shri Gulati would render  Rule 9A  otiose. In effect that would  be to  call  upon this Tribunal to declare Rule 9A ultra vires.    We may observe that it would not be open to this  Tribunal to  record such a finding, as that would be beyond the competence of this Tribunal,  and not within its jurisdiction or powers.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Another  decision to  which Shri Gulati  made  reference  was   the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D.R. Kohli &  Orx.  v.  The  Atul Products  Ltd.<\/a>   1985  (20)  ELT    212    (S.C.).    But   that decision was with reference to a dispute as  to  the  entitlement of exemption under a notification in case the raw material used was duty paid.    Admittedly the raw material was not excisable on the date   of its manufacture.    But the manufacturer offered to pay duty thereon  in  order to entitle himself to the exemption.    The Supreme Court observed  that the  payment   of excise  duty on dyes was possible only if they had been manufactured after the introduction of Item 14D in the First Schedule to the Act.    It was  observed later  in the judgment that in the said matter the  case  of the  respondent  (manufacturer) did  not fall under the notification granting exemption since the basic dyes used by it in producing  other  processed  dyes  were   not  subject  to  levy  of excise duty when they were manufactured and cleared.    Therefore,  there  are no observations in the said judgment as would  go  to  support the contention raised before us by Shri Gulati.\n<\/p>\n
7.    We may also  refer to  another  decision  of this  Tribunal in Castrol Limited,    Calcutta  v.   Collector  of Central Excise 1985 (21)   ELT 333  in which also the several decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court relevant to the dispute before us had been  considered. In the said case the dispute related to liability for payment of excise  duty  on goods  which had been manufactured at a time when they were wholly exempt from duty but were cleared subsequent to the  withdrawal  of the   exemption. It was  held,  following  the decision of the Supreme Court (when it dismissed (he special leave petition against the  decision of the  Madhya  Pradesh  High Court  reported   in  (1978  ELT  33)  that in  respect of a  commodity  which though excisable was on the date of manufacture totally  exempted  from  duty by reason of an exemption notification no duty would  be  payable  though  at the time of clearance the exemption notification had been withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
8.    In  that  decision,   as  well  as  in   the  Parmali Wallace decision the Tribunal  had  taken   note  of the  distinction   between  the  cases   in    which excisable goods were totally exempt from  excise  duty  on  the  date of manufacture and the cases in which such goods were  only partly exempt on  the date of manufacture.    It had been  held that when the goods were excisable and were liable to pay duty (though at a reduced rate) on the date of manufacture, the duty that would become payable at the time of clearance would be the duty as was in force on the date of clearance, under Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules. This was in distinction to the situation where the goods were totally exempt (though excisable) on the date of manufacture in which event no duty would be payable on the date of clearance though by that time the exemption may have been withdrawn. The Vazir Sultan decision dealt with the case of imposition of special excise duty. It was held that as the provision for imposition of special excise duty came into effect on a date subsequent to the date of manufacture, no such special excise duty would be payable on such goods manufactured before that day though they may be cleared subsequent to the date of imposition of special excise duty.\n<\/p>\n
9.    It may be noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the Kirloskar case (1978 ELT 33) dealt with goods which ware wholly  exempt at the time  of manufacture though the exemption had been withdrawn at the time of clearance.   The  decision  of the High Court that no duty was payable in such circumstances was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the SLP.    The later  decision  of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shree Synthetics v.   Union  of   India (1982  ELT 97) dealt with goods which were entitled to  partial exemption only on the date of manufacture, and not full exemption.    It was  held that in such circumstances it was the  rate of duty as was in force on the date of clearance that would be relevant for the purpose of assessment under Rule 9A of the Central Excise  Rules.   It was in view of all the above decisions that this  Tribunal had in its earlier   decisions (cited  supra) held in the manner mentioned earlier.    In view of the above decisions,  the contention now  advanced by  Shri Gulati to the contrary is not acceptable.    Further, as pointed out by Sri Sachar,  the Madhya Pradesh High Court had  in (cited supra) held that Rule 9A was  intra vires and not in excess of the Rule making power of the Government.    In  this view also, the contention of Shri Gulati that the provision in Rule 9A should not be enforced as being contrary to the provisions of the  Act  (under which the chargeable event was manufacture only), could not be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
10.    In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the orders  of the lower authorities were correct.   This appeal is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 (6) ECR 740 Tri Delhi, 1986 (24) ELT 61 Tri Del ORDER V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J) 1. As observed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, in his order dated 14-10-1980 […]<\/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":[41,33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-customs-excise-and-gold-tribunal-delhi","category-tribunal"],"yoast_head":"\nHmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 - 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\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\" \/>\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=\"1985-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-31T13:02:05+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-31T13:02:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\"},\"wordCount\":1485,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi\",\"Tribunal\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\",\"name\":\"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-31T13:02:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985\"}]},{\"@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":"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 - 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\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-31T13:02:05+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985","datePublished":"1985-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-31T13:02:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985"},"wordCount":1485,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi","Tribunal"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985","name":"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-31T13:02:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hmm-limited-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-december-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hmm Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 December, 1985"}]},{"@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\/60422","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=60422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}