Ravi Exports Ltd. Vs. Cce

Ravi Exports Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 09, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33736

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/33736
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: P Chacko, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jan 09, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravi Exports Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. the commissioner (appeals) has sustained penalty on the appellants to the extent of rs. 80,000/-. this penalty is for a delay of two days in the payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme of rule 96zq of the central excise rules, 1944. interest on duty, amounting to rs. 1,052/-, charged by the original authority has also been affirmed by the commissioner (appeals). it is submitted today on behalf of the appellants that this amount of interest will be paid by them. after hearing both sides, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal itself finally. accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal.2. it is not in dispute that the delay involved in deposit of duty under rule 96zq is only of two days. it is, again, not in dispute that the demand of interest on duty is on account of such delay. the party is willing to pay the interest, also. there is no material on record to show that any mens rea was involved in the delayed payment of duty. we are of the view that, in these facts and circumstances, any penalty under the rule is not liable to be imposed on the appellants.accordingly, we set aside the penalty. the appeal is allowed to this extent.

Full Judgment

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained penalty on the appellants to the extent of Rs. 80,000/-. This penalty is for a delay of two days in the payment of duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Interest on duty, amounting to Rs. 1,052/-, charged by the original authority has also been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is submitted today on behalf of the appellants that this amount of interest will be paid by them. After hearing both sides, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal itself finally. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal.

2. It is not in dispute that the delay involved in deposit of duty under Rule 96ZQ is only of two days. It is, again, not in dispute that the demand of interest on duty is on account of such delay. The party is willing to pay the interest, also. There is no material on record to show that any mens rea was involved in the delayed payment of duty. We are of the view that, in these facts and circumstances, any penalty under the Rule is not liable to be imposed on the appellants.

Accordingly, we set aside the penalty. The appeal is allowed to this extent.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ravi Exports Ltd. vs Cce Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P Chacko, A M Moheb