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.

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. General Manager, Telecom, Bsnl

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. vs General Manager, Telecom, Bsnl

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Kerala Decided May 26, 2008
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/729279

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
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.E. Appeal No. 4 of 2006
Subject
Service Tax
Disposition
Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

- CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]: [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appe...

Key legal issue
Service Tax
Outcome / disposition
Appeal allowed
Acts & sections
Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 75

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Advocate John Varghese, Adv. and; Parameswaran Nair, Assistant S.Gs.

Respondent

General Manager, Telecom, Bsnl

Advocate V.R. Kesavakaimal, SC

Legal References

Acts
Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 75
Reported In
2009[14]STR450; [2009]21STT404

Excerpt

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. c.n. ramachandran nair, j.1. the appeal is filed against the order of the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal cancelling 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 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 ad justed towards liability in terms of demand but without charging any interest thereon.

Full Judgment

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling 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 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 ad justed towards liability in terms of demand but without charging any interest thereon.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial