Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, Jammu. vs. Sun Pahrma Laboratories LTD. I.G.C. Samba.

Held

The High Court held that the appeal before it was not maintainable. This was based on the concession made by the revenue's counsel that the issue was squarely covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in a similar case involving the same respondent. That judgment had opined that the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal would lie with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court directed the registry to return the original paper book to the appellant's counsel to enable them to present it before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which is the Supreme Court. No decision was made on the merits of the CESTAT's order.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (the revenue) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed an order in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (the respondent). The revenue's appeal raised substantial questions of law concerning the CESTAT's reliance on a Single Judge's order that was under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, and the respondent's entitlement to a 100% refund despite not challenging certain amending notifications. However, the revenue's counsel conceded that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in relying on a Single Judge's judgment that was under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, and where an identical matter was pending before the Supreme Court. (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding the respondent entitled to a 100% refund when the matter was pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court. (Question of law) 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding the respondent entitled to a 100% refund when the respondent had not challenged specific amending notifications before the appropriate forum. (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): Argued that the CESTAT's reliance on a judgment under challenge and pending before higher courts was incorrect. Also questioned the refund entitlement given the pendency of matters and un-challenged notifications. Respondent: No arguments recorded for the respondent.