Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kitply Industries Vs. Cce

Kitply Industries vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 06, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34041

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kitply Industries

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. this rom application is directed against the rejection of revenue's submission that the commissioner (appeals) was in error in upholding the appellant's claim for deduction towards interest on receivable. the present application points out that five invoice nos. 945, 948, 949, 951 & 95. all dated 31.03.98 indicated that credit period was only seven days and beyond that period interest at 21% shall be paid. based on those invoices, it is being contended that credit period was only seven days. as against this the learned counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the appellant was selling their goods from 26 depots. it was the case all along that the appellant was not realising interest even in cases where the delay in making the payment was 72 days. this position has also been accepted by the lower authorities. it is submitted that the law on the subject remains well settled, as noted in the order of commissioner (appeals) that deduction towards delay in payment is permissible. he also points out that the commissioner has relied on the decision of the apex court in the case of mrf limited vs uoi, 2002-taxindiaonline-49-sc-cx, while deciding these questions.2. we have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. the present petition is not well founded. when a manufacturer makes large number of sales, against certain purchases, some parties would make payment on time. this can not be reason to hold that there is no credit involved or that deduction for delayed receipt is not permissible. further, this concerns merits of the case and not apparent mistake. the rectification of mistake application fails and is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. This ROM application is directed against the rejection of revenue's submission that the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in upholding the appellant's claim for deduction towards interest on receivable. The present application points out that five invoice Nos. 945, 948, 949, 951 & 95. all dated 31.03.98 indicated that credit period was only seven days and beyond that period interest at 21% shall be paid. Based on those invoices, it is being contended that credit period was only seven days. As against this the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent points out that the appellant was selling their goods from 26 depots. It was the case all along that the appellant was not realising interest even in cases where the delay in making the payment was 72 days. This position has also been accepted by the lower authorities. It is submitted that the law on the subject remains well settled, as noted in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that deduction towards delay in payment is permissible. He also points out that the Commissioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of MRF Limited Vs UOI, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-49-SC-CX, while deciding these questions.

2. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. the present petition is not well founded. When a manufacturer makes large number of sales, against certain purchases, some parties would make payment on time. This can not be reason to hold that there is no credit involved or that deduction for delayed receipt is not permissible. Further, this concerns merits of the case and not apparent mistake. The rectification of mistake application fails and is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial