Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. after hearing both sides on the application pointing out some errors in the stay order, we clarify the position as follows.2. the representative of the appellant in the first paragraph of the order that he was withdrawing that part of the application relating to demand for payment of a sum demanded under rule 57cc of rs. 84.21 lakhs (shown in that paragraph as rs. 84.21 lakhs is correct). however, the reason for not pressing the application for waiver of deposit of duty was not that it had been paid, but that, since in the light of the clarification issued by the board that the sums payable in terms of rule 57cc were not duty, the provisions of section 35f would not be applicable.3. the reference elsewhere in the order to this sum were made in the context of the penalty imposed on the assessee.

Judgment:
1. After hearing both sides on the application pointing out some errors in the stay order, we clarify the position as follows.

2. The representative of the appellant in the first paragraph of the order that he was withdrawing that part of the application relating to demand for payment of a sum demanded under Rule 57CC of Rs. 84.21 lakhs (shown in that paragraph as Rs. 84.21 lakhs is correct). However, the reason for not pressing the application for waiver of deposit of duty was not that it had been paid, but that, since in the light of the clarification issued by the Board that the sums payable in terms of Rule 57CC were not duty, the provisions of Section 35F would not be applicable.

3. The reference elsewhere in the order to this sum were made in the context of the penalty imposed on the assessee.