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

Held

The High Court held that the appeal before it was not maintainable. The Court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in CEA No. 05/2018 (Commissioner of General GST & Central Excise, Jammu v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited), decided on August 21, 2019. In that judgment, it was opined that the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the present appeal against the CESTAT order was dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court. The Court directed the Registry to return the original paper book to the appellant's counsel, after retaining a photocopy, to enable the appellant to present it before the competent court. The specific issues raised by the revenue were not decided on merits, as the appeal was found to be not maintainable before this High Court.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu (appellant/revenue) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT order, dated December 6, 2018, was in relation to Appeal No. E/54465/2015 and connected appeals. The respondent is Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The appeal concerns the refund entitlement of the respondent. The appellant argues that the CESTAT relied on a Single Judge's order that was under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, and that an identical matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The appellant also questions the CESTAT's holding that the respondent was entitled to a 100% refund without challenging certain amending notifications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in relying on a Single Judge's judgment that was under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, especially when an identical matter was pending before the Supreme Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondent is 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 correct in holding that the respondent is entitled to a 100% refund when the respondent had not challenged the amending Notification No. 19/2008 dated March 27, 2008, and Notification No. 34/2008 dated June 10, 2008, before the appropriate forum? (Question of law) Contentions of the Appellant (Revenue): The Tribunal erred by relying on a Single Judge's order that was under challenge and pending before higher courts. The pendency of identical matters before the High Court and Supreme Court should have precluded the Tribunal from granting a full refund. The respondent's failure to challenge specific amending notifications also weakens their claim for a refund. Contentions of the Respondent (Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited): Not recorded in the judgment.