IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 C.E.Appeal.No. 25 of 2005() --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2005 IN ORDER.NO.365/2005 IN A.NO..E/280/2003 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE .................... APPELLANT. --------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT. ------------------------ M/S.SURABHI STEELS (P) LTD., MARUTHACODE, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD 678 008, KERALA BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, ALONG WITH CEA NO.38 OF 2005 CEA NO.43 OF 2005 & CEA NO. 45 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... C.E. Appeal Nos.25,38,43 & 45 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. In all these cases the orders under challenge are issued by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to reduction of penalty for delay in payment of duty. The Assistant Solicitor General contended that there is no justification for delaying payment of duty at compounded rate based on installed capacity. His argument is that the Tribunal has no authority to reduce the penalty because sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO provides for mandatory penalty of equal amount of duty. However, we find from the orders of the Tribunal that Tribunal has essentially followed decision of the Supreme Court in regard to reduction of penalty. Delay is also for limited number of days and all the parties have paid duty with interest. In any case since interest at the rate of 18% for the actual period of delay is also paid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal reducing penalty. However, we make it clear that the Tribunal's orders confirmed by us need not be treated as a precedent in 2 regard to penalty found payable in any other case. The appeals are dismissed with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms