ST No. 11 of 2003 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Finance Act, 1994 s. 75
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT: ----------------------- THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL FOR R.1 THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------- C.E.Appeal No. 4 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal canceling interest demanded from the respondent under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994. The respondent, which is a Government Department, delayed payment of service tax by four days on account of delay in allotting head of account for payment. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount was deposited in time, but on account of delay in allotting head of account, credit was given for payment only with a delay of four days. Whatever be the reason for the belated payment, we find that the provision for interest containing Section 75 is mandatory. The Tribunal appears to have cancelled the interest on the assumption that the demand made is penalty. However, on going through the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner, we find that he had waived penalty and the amount of Rs.19,009/- demanded is only in the form of interest under Section 75, which is mandatory in nature. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amount was also deposited prior to CEA No.4/2006 -2- final orders issued by the Tribunal. Since we find that the Tribunal has cancelled the demand treating as penalty, we allow the appeal by cancelling the order of the Tribunal and restoring the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act. The deposit made will be adjusted towards liability in terms of demand but without charging any interest thereon. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Finance Act, 1994 — s. 75.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 26 May 2008. The bench was C N RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, V K MOHANAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.