Judgment · High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed confirming
Judgment
Operative part
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 C.E.Appeal. No. 7 of 2006() -------------------------- FINAL ORDER IN APPEAL NO.E/1004/2003 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE &SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------- M/S. UTILITY ALLOYS PVT. LTD., 10/247, MARUTHACODE, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD - 678 621. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... C.E. Appeal No.7 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against cancellation of equal amount of penalty for delayed payment of duty by respondent. Admittedly, there was delay in payment of duty in terms of Rule 96 ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules. However, taking note of the payment of duty, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs.5,000/-. However, the Tribunal is silent about the interest levied under the impugned orders. The respondent is obviously liable to pay the interest and we make it clear that the Tribunal's order cancelling penalty should not be read as waiver or reduction of interest payable in accordance with the Rules for the delayed payment of duty. The appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal pertaining to reduction of penalty, but the respondent will be liable to pay interest in terms of the original order. 2 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed confirming
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Mar 2009. The bench was C N RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, K SURENDRA MOHAN.
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.