{"id":81933,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-16T10:46:12","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T05:16:12","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs The 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\/2441\/2009\t 8\/ 12\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. 2441 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGOPI\nSYNTHETIC PVT LTD - 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
\n: HONOURABLE MR.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 24.1.2007 raising the
\n\tdemand of duty of Rs.1,01,282\/- under Section 11 A (2) of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty equivalent to the
\n\tamount of duty demanded under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of
\n\tthe Central Excise Rules, 1944 and charging interest at the
\n\tprescribed rates under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
\n\t The respondent   assessee has challenged this order before the
\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 29.03.2007 upheld
\n\tthe amount of Central Excise duty of Rs.1,01,282\/- which was
\n\tconfirmed and paid by the assessee. However, the Appeal of the
\n\tassessee qua the penalty under Section-11AC was allowed and penalty
\n\timposed under Section-11AC was set aside.  Being further aggrieved
\n\tby the said order, the department preferred Second Appeal before the
\n\tTribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.05.2008 partly
\n\tallowed Appeal of the Revenue and by applying the ratio of the
\n\tdecision of Delhi High Court in the case of  Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd.,
\n\tconfirmed the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act to
\n\tthe extent of 25% of the duty liability.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\tfurther aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue
\n\tfiled Tax Appeal No.1957 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 24.3.2009 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,
\n\t2008 (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. Ravani and also perused
\n\tvery minutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter
\n\tof fact, all these submissions urged by Mr. Ravani were already
\n\tconsidered by this Court in its order dated 18.11.2009 in the case
\n\tof Messers Exotic
\n\tAssociates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal No.572 of
\n\t2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942 of 2008,
\n\tin the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs.
\n\tRama 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
\n\tnon-compliance of the pre-condition for availment of benefit of
\n\treduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise
\n\tAct, 1944. As per the first proviso, the duty amount was not paid
\n\twith interest and even the reduced penalty of 25% was not deposited
\n\tby the respondent within 30 days from the date of such
\n\tdetermination, as required
\n\tunder second proviso to Section 11AC of the Act.  Despite this, the
\n\tCourt has granted benefit of the Proviso by issuing direction to the
\n\tadjudicating authority to give an 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
\n\tAppeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 decided on
\n\t18.11.2009. We have observed therein that the adjudicating authority
\n\thas not calculated the interest neither in the order-in-original nor
\n\teven thereafter. It is, therefore, too much to expect from the
\n\trespondent – assessee to pay the interest alongwith the duty amount
\n\tin 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 earlier issued Circular on 22.5.2008 wherein it is
\n\tclarified that in all cases wherein penalty under Section 11AC of
\n\tthe Act is imposed, the provisions contained in the first and second
\n\tproviso of Section 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in the
\n\torder-in-original itself by the adjudicating authority. It is,
\n\ttherefore, not open for the revenue to agitate this issue before the
\n\tCourt in contradiction of the Circular issued by the Central Excise
\n\tDepartment. 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 order itself that if the assessee   wants to
\n\tavail such option he is permitted to do so.  In the case on hand,
\n\tsince 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 authority may send a communication to the
\n\trespondent – assessee indicating therein that the particular amount
\n\tof interest and\/or 25% of the penalty of the duty amount is not paid
\n\tby the respondent –  assessee and hence if the assessee wants to
\n\tavail the benefit of the reduced penalty of 25%, such amount of
\n\tinterest and\/or penalty of 25% should be paid within 30 days from
\n\tthe date of receipt of such communication, failing
\n\twhich they would be liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC
\n\tequivalent 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 The on 17 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/2441\/2009 8\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 2441 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Appellant(s) Versus GOPI SYNTHETIC PVT LTD – Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance […]<\/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-81933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs The 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-the-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 The 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-the-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=\"2016-10-16T05:16:12+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-the-on-17-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-16T05:16:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1672,\"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-17-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The 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\":\"2016-10-16T05:16:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-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 The 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 The 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-the-on-17-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-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":"2016-10-16T05:16:12+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-the-on-17-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-16T05:16:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010"},"wordCount":1672,"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-17-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010","name":"Commissioner vs The 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":"2016-10-16T05:16:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-17-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-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 The 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\/81933","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=81933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}