{"id":91322,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2"},"modified":"2016-08-01T04:22:26","modified_gmt":"2016-07-31T22:52:26","slug":"commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Whether on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Whether 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\/564\/2009\t 13\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 564 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS - DAMAN - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nR\nA SHAIKH PAPER MILLS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 17\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per : HONOURABLE
\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
\tLeave to amend as per the
\n\tdraft amendment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise & Customs, Surat-I has filed this tax Appeal
\n\tunder Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to
\n\tformulate the following substantial questions of law for
\n\tdetermination and consideration of this Court;\n<\/p>\n
 Whether
\n\t\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
\n\t\tcommitted a substantial error of law in reducing the mandatory
\n\t\tpenalty imposed on the respondent assessee under Section 11AC of
\n\t\tthe Central Excise Act, 1944 to the extent of 25% despite having
\n\t\tconfirmed the duty on account of clandestine removal and evasion of
\n\t\tCentral Excise duty?\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard Mr. R. J. Oza,
\n\tlearned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the
\n\torder passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt the time of hearing of
\n\tthis Tax Appeal Mr.Oza reframed the substantial questions of law
\n\twhich are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
 (a)
\n\t\tWhether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t\t11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be extended to such
\n\t\tperson who has not paid amount of interest determined by the
\n\t\tadjudicating authority payable under Section 11AB of the Central
\n\t\tExcise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\t\t Whether or not benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section
\n\t\t11AC of the Central Excise act, 1944 can be extended to such person
\n\t\twho has paid, before issuance of show cause notice only duty
\n\t\tdetermined by the adjudicating authority payable under Section
\n\t\t11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\t\tWhether the adjudicating authority is statutorily obliged to set
\n\t\tout in his order the availability of benefit of reduced penalty
\n\t\tprescribed under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act,
\n\t\t1944 and to give option to such person liable for penalty under
\n\t\tSection 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\n\t\t Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
\n\t\tis justified and has committed substantial error of law in placing
\n\t\treliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the
\n\t\tcase of CCE v. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., reported in 2007 (79) RLT
\n\t\t109 (Del) \/ 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Delhi) and in case of K.P.Pouches
\n\t\tP. Ltd., reported in 2008 (85) RLT (483) (Delhi)\/ 2008(228) ELT 31
\n\t\t(Del)?\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\n\t\t Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be
\n\t\tan order in accordance with law?\n<\/p>\n
(f)
\n\t\t Whether or not in the facts and circumstances of the case the
\n\t\tTribunal has committed substantial error of law in reducing penalty
\n\t\tto 25% of the duty amount on the respondent ?\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza submitted that the
\n\tTribunal has not recorded any reasons setting out facts of the case
\n\tof the respondent and has mechanically passed order extending
\n\tbenefit of reduced penalty on the respondent. He has further
\n\tsubmitted that the team of Central Excise Officers had carried
\n\tsearch of the respondent’s premise on 17.8.2001 and detected evasion
\n\tof Central Excise duty payable by the respondent as on the date of
\n\tthe said search. The show cause notice was issued on 28.3.2003. The
\n\tadjudicating authority has passed order dated 30.4.2004 demanding
\n\tcentral excise duty amounting to Rs.16,49,237\/- and cess Rs.17,237\/-
\n\tunder Section 11(A)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also
\n\tordered to recover interest at the appropriate rate on the total
\n\tduty determined as stipulated under Section 11AB of the Central
\n\tExcise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs.16,49,237\/- on the
\n\trespondent under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The
\n\trespondent paid duty amounting to Rs.6,31,702\/- and cess Rs.4,935\/-
\n\ton 17.8.2000 and 13.8.2000. The respondent preferred Appeal and the
\n\tAppellate Commissioner by his order dated 19.10.2004 rejected the
\n\tAppeal of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent preferred Appeal
\n\tbefore the Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed order of the
\n\tadjudicating authority and Appellate Commissioner with regard to
\n\tlevy of duty and interest, however, passed order reducing levy of
\n\tpenalty at 25% of the duty amount.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza has submitted that
\n\tthe respondent has not complied with the preconditions for availment
\n\tof benefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act, 1944 and, therefore, the impugned order of the
\n\tTribunal is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza further submitted
\n\tthat the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of  K. P.
\n\tPouches (P) Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Del),
\n\tcannot be applied to the case of the respondent inasmuch as in the
\n\tcase of  K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd., (Supra)
\n\tthe adjudicating authority has not ordered recovery of interest
\n\tunder Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because in the
\n\tsaid case the assessee had deposited total amount of duty payable
\n\tunder Section 11A(2) of
\n\tthe Act on the date of detection of evasion
\n\tof duty itself. He has further submitted that the decision in the
\n\tcase of  Malbro Appliances P. Ltd., reported in
\n\t2007 (208) ELT 503 (Del),
\n\talso cannot be applied because the facts of the case on hand are not
\n\tidentical to the facts of the case of the assessee in the  Malbro
\n\tAppliances P. Ltd., (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the contrary, in view of settled proposition laid down by the
\n\tPunjab and Haryana Court in the case of  Machino
\n\tMontell (I) Ltd., reported in 2006(4) STR 177 (P & H)
\n\tas well as judgments of the Apex Court in the case of  Rajasthan
\n\tSpinning & Weaving Mills, reported in 2009(238) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tDharmendra Textile Processors, reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC),
\n\tand
\n\tdecisions of the Tribunal in the case of  Jawala
\n\tSteels Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (238) ELT 694 (Tri   Kolkata),
\n\tand   Ponneri Steel Industries, reported in 2009
\n\t(238) ELT 295 (Tri   Chennai)
\n\tand such other cases,
\n\tthe Tribunal was required to allow department
\n\tto levy penalty on the respondent for the amount equivalent to his
\n\tduty liability and pass order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Oza
\n\thas further submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is in
\n\tdisregard of the law laid down by this Court in Tax Appeal No.140 of
\n\t2008 and Special Civil Application No.22931 of 2005 and such other
\n\tjudgments, which obligate upon the Tribunal to record cogent reasons
\n\tin support of conclusion arrived at by him in passing the final
\n\torder. In support of this submission Mr.Oza also relied on the
\n\tfollowing decisions  (I) Coats Viyella India
\n\tLtd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 (133) ELT 229 (SC)\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) TATA Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Vs. Collector of
\n\tCentral Excise, 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise Vs. Wimco Ltd., 2007 (217) ELT 3 (SC) (iv)
\n\tCommissioner  of Central Exicse Vs. GTC Industries
\n\tLtd.,  2008 (228) 505 (SC) (v) Commissioner of Central
\n\tExcise Vs. Srikumar Agencies 2008 (232) 577 (SC) (vi) Stead Fast
\n\tPaper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1983 (12) ELT 744
\n\t(Guj.).\n<\/p>\n
\t We
\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mr.Oza and also perused very
\n\tminutely the order passed by the authorities below. As a matter of
\n\tfact, all these questions reframed by Mr.Oza are different facets of
\n\tthe main question as to whether the Tribunal is justified in
\n\treducing the penalty to 25% of the duty leviable on the respondent.
\n\tAll these aspects of the main question are already considered by
\n\tthis Court in its order dated 18.11.2009 in the case of  Messers
\n\tExotic Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Tax Appeal
\n\tNo.572 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 and Tax Appeal No.1942
\n\tof 2008, in the case of Commissioner of  Central Exicse
\n\t& Customs Vs. Rama Synsilk  Mills P. Ltd., decided
\n\ton 21.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court after considering the decision of  Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (79)
\n\t  RLT 109 (Delhi), Union of India Vs. Dharmendra
\n\tTextiles, 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC), Union of India Vs. Rajasthan
\n\tSpinning & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), K. P. Pouches
\n\t(P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India, 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi),
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak Vs. J. R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.,
\n\t2009 (238) ELT 209,
\n\thas taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal 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
\tHowever,
\n\tMr.Oza has made two more submissions in this Tax Appeal.  He has
\n\temphatically stated that the respondent has not complied with
\n\tpre-condition for availment of
\n\tbenefit of reduced penalty under proviso to Section 11AC of the
\n\tCentral Excise Act, 1944. As per the first proviso, the duty amount
\n\twas not paid with interest and even the reduced penalty of 25% is
\n\tnot deposited by the respondent within 30 days from the date of such
\n\tdetermination, as required under second proviso to Section 11AC of
\n\tthe Act.  So far as second issue is concerned, Mr.Oza submitted that
\n\tthe adjudicating authority is not under any statutory obligation to
\n\tset out in its order the availability of benefit of reduced penalty
\n\tprescribed under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act
\n\tand to give an option to such person liable for penalty under that
\n\tSection. Both these issues were dealt with by this Court in Tax
\n\tAppeal No.572 of 2007 with tax Appeal No.869 of 2007 decided on
\n\t18.11.2009. It is also important to note that the adjudicating
\n\tauthority has not calculated the interest neither in the
\n\torder-in-original nor even thereafter. It is, therefore,
\n\ttoo much to expect from the respondent assessee to pay the interest
\n\talongwith the duty amount in absence of such calculation of
\n\tinterest. As far as statutory obligation of the adjudicating
\n\tauthority is concerned, the Central Excise Department itself has
\n\tissued Circular on 22.5.2008 wherein it is clarified that in all
\n\tcases wherein 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
\n\tdirected the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order giving
\n\toption to the assessee to pay the duty amount within 30 days by
\n\tmaking it explicitly clear in the order itself that if
\n\tthe assessee   wants to avail such option he is permitted to do so.
\n\tIn the case of hand it appears from the submissions of Mr.Oza that
\n\tthe entire amount has not been paid by the respondent   assessee
\n\tand interest and\/or reduced penalty of 25% were also not paid by the
\n\trespondent-assessee.  It is also apparent from the record that the
\n\tadjudicating authority has not given any option to the
\n\trespondent-assessee, we therefore direct the adjudicating authority
\n\tto send a communication to respondent-assessee indicating therein
\n\tthat a particular amount of duty demanded alongwith interest and\/or
\n\t25% of 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
\n\treduced penalty of 25% such amount of duty not paid so far alongwith
\n\tinterest and\/or penalty of 25% should be paid within 30 days from
\n\tthe date of receipt of such communication, failing which they would
\n\tbe liable
\n\tto pay penalty under Section-11AC equivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\n\tparting, we observe that the order passed
\n\tby the Tribunal cannot be said to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned
\n\torder. The authorities cited by Mr.Oza in support of his submission
\n\tthat a non-speaking order is passed by the Tribunal and hence it
\n\tdeserves to be dismissed, were duly considered by us and we are of
\n\tthe view that they are not applicable to the facts of the present
\n\tcase.  The Tribunal while dismissing the Departmental Appeal
\n\tobserved that the quantum of the penalty is to the extent at around
\n\t25% of the duty amount and does not call for any interference.  The
\n\tTribunal is taking consistent view in the matters of penalty levied
\n\tunder Section 11AC and when the duty amount is paid before issuance
\n\tof show cause notice, the penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty
\n\tamount. If the duty amount with interest is
\n\tnot paid in time and even reduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount
\n\tis not paid in time and option is not given to the respondent
\n\tassessee, we have taken the view that such option
\n\tshould be given to the assessee and period of 30 days would commence
\n\tfrom the date of giving such option. In this view of the matter, no
\n\tinterference is called for in the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t Subject to the above
\n\tclarification this Tax Appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          ( K. A. PUJ, J.)
\n(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.)<\/p>\n
kks                       <\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Whether on 17 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/564\/2009 13\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 564 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Whether 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-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Whether 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-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2016-07-31T22:52:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Whether on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-31T22:52:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":2071,\"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-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Whether 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\":\"2016-07-31T22:52:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Whether 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs Whether 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-whether-on-17-february-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Whether on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2","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":"2016-07-31T22:52:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Whether on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-31T22:52:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2"},"wordCount":2071,"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-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2","name":"Commissioner vs Whether 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":"2016-07-31T22:52:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-whether-on-17-february-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Whether 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91322","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=91322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}