Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Revenue on 6 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Revenue on 6 April, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/703/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 703 of 2010
 

 
===============================================
 

COMMISSIONER
- Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

M/S
VULCAN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CO LTD. - Opponent(s)
 

=============================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR
RJ OZA for Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR DK TRIVEDI for Opponent(s) :
1, 
===============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 24/03/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. Revenue
is in appeal against the judgment of the Customs Excise & Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short) dated 12.10.2009.

2. Issue
pertains to interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on
alleged late payment of service tax. The case of the Revenue is that
the assessee could not have used Cenvat credit for payment of the
service tax and was required to pay it in cash. The assessee having
initially utilized Cenvat credit and thereafter paying belated tax in
cash was liable to pay penalty as well as interest. Admittedly,
before the Tribunal , in the appeal filed by the Revenue, question of
penalty was not pressed. Sole question, therefore, presented before
the Tribunal was one of interest on the so called delayed payment of
service tax. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondent and
confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds.

3.
Having perused the documents on record and having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that the amount involved is
extremely small. On the principal sum of Rs.95,425/- interest for a
brief period is charged at 13% per annum. Looking to the smallness of
the claim, we refrain from going into the question on merits. Tax
Appeal is dismissed on this ground.

(Akil
Kureshi, J. )

(Ms.

Sonia Gokani, J. )

sudhir

   

Top