{"id":96375,"date":"2010-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-16T18:35:11","modified_gmt":"2016-04-16T13:05:11","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 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\/1855\/2008\t 1\/ 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. 1855 of 2008\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 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSANGAM\nPRINTS PVT LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR PARESH M DAVE 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: 18\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.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
 (a)
\n\t\tWhether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
\n\t\thas committed substantial error of law in confirming decision of
\n\t\tthe Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside demand of interest under
\n\t\tSection 11AB and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC without
\n\t\tassigning any reason for the same ?\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\n\t\tWhether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has
\n\t\tcommitted substantial error of law by not allowing appeal of the
\n\t\tDepartment and imposing full penalty under Section 11AC of the Act
\n\t\ton the respondent ?\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\n\t\t Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal
\n\t\thas committed substantial error of law in
\n\t\tapplying decision of the Delhi High Court in case of M\/s.Marlbro
\n\t\tAppliances P. Ltd and in the case of M\/s. K.P.Pouches ?\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 the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be
\n\t\tan order in accordance with law?\n<\/p>\n
(e)
\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 confirming
\n\t\tdecision of Appellate Commissioner extending benefit of reduced
\n\t\tpenalty to the extent around 25% of duty amount to the respondent
\n\t\t?\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 9.1.2003 and detected evasion
\n\tof Central Excise duty payable by the respondent as on the date of
\n\tthe said search. The respondent having faced with the situation
\n\tdeposited the entire duty demanded prior to issuance of show cause
\n\tnotice. The show cause notice was issued on 2.7.2003. The
\n\tadjudicating authority has passed order dated 27.2.2004 demanding
\n\tduty of Rs.59,218\/- and also demanded interest at the appropriate
\n\trate from the respondent under Section-11Ab of the Act and also
\n\timposed penalty of Rs.59,218\/- under Section-11AC of the Central
\n\tExcise Act, 1944. The respondent preferred Appeal and the Appellate
\n\tCommissioner by his order dated 10.1.2005 confirmed order of duty
\n\tdemand made by the adjudicating authority, set aside demand of
\n\tinterest under Section-11AB and penalty under Section-11AC of the
\n\tAct. The Department preferred Appeal against the order of the
\n\tAppellate Commissioner. The Tribunal by order dated 16.5.2008
\n\tconfirmed the penalty amount to 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 the 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, the 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 Ltd., 2008 (228)
\n\t505 (SC) (v) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Srikumar Agencies
\n\t2008 (232) 577 (SC) (vi) Stead Fast Paper Mills  Vs.
\n\tCollector of Central Excise, 1983 (12) ELT 744 (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 & Customs
\n\tVs. Rama Synsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21.1.2010.
\n\tThis Court after considering the decision of  Commissioner
\n\tof Central Excise Vs. Malbro  Appliances, 2007 (79)
\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 benefit of reduced penalty under
\n\tproviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the
\n\tfirst 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, too much to
\n\texpect from the respondent assessee to pay the interest alongwith
\n\tthe duty amount in absence of such calculation
\n\tof interest. 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 the assessee
\n\t wants to avail such option he is permitted to do so.  In the case
\n\ton hand since the duty amount has already been paid
\n\tby the respondent assessee and if the interest and\/or reduced
\n\tpenalty of 25% were not paid by the respondent assessee, the
\n\tadjudicating authority may send a communication to the respondent
\n\tassessee indicating therein that the particular amount of interest
\n\tand\/or 25% of the penalty of the duty amount is not paid by the
\n\trespondent assessee and hence if the assessee wants to avail the
\n\tbenefit of the reduced penalty of 25%, such amount of interest
\n\tand\/or penalty of 25% should be paid within 30 days from the date of
\n\treceipt of such communication, failing which they would be liable to
\n\tpay penalty under Section 11AC equivalent to the amount of duty.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\n\tparting, we observe that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
\n\tsaid to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The authorities
\n\tcited by Mr.Oza in support of his submission that a non-speaking
\n\torder is passed
\n\tby the Tribunal and hence it deserves to be dismissed, were duly
\n\tconsidered by us and we are of the view that they are not applicable
\n\tto the facts of the present case.  The Tribunal while dismissing the
\n\tDepartmental Appeal observed that the quantum of the penalty is to
\n\tthe extent at around 25% of the duty amount and does not call for
\n\tany interference.  The Tribunal is taking consistent view in the
\n\tmatters of penalty levied under Section 11AC and when the duty
\n\tamount is paid before issuance of show cause notice, the penalty is
\n\treduced to 25% of the duty amount. If the duty amount with interest
\n\tis not paid in time and even reduced penalty of 25% of the duty
\n\tamount is not paid in time and option is not given to the respondent
\n\tassessee, we have taken the view that such option should be given to
\n\tthe assessee and period of 30 days would commence from the date of
\n\tgiving such option. In this view of the matter, no interference is
\n\tcalled for in the
\n\torder 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 The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1855\/2008 1\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1855 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether […]<\/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-96375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 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-commissioner-of-on-18-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 Commissioner Of on 18 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-commissioner-of-on-18-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=\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-16T13:05:11+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-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-16T13:05:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2043,\"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-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-16T13:05:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 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 Commissioner Of on 18 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-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-16T13:05:11+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-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-16T13:05:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010"},"wordCount":2043,"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-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010","name":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-16T13:05:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-commissioner-of-on-18-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The Commissioner Of on 18 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\/96375","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=96375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}