Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, Jammu. vs. Sun Pharma Laboratories LTD. Bari Brahmana Jammu.

Held

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable before it. This decision was based on 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 21.08.2019. In that judgment, it was opined that the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal would lie with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to return the original paper book to the appellant's counsel for presentation before the competent court, which is the Supreme Court. The court did not decide the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue on their merits, as the appeal itself was found to be not maintainable before the High Court.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu (appellant/revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had ruled in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (respondent/assessee), granting them a 100% refund. 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 refund without challenging specific amending notifications. However, the revenue's counsel conceded that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in a related case involving the same parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in relying on a Single Judge's order that was itself under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, particularly when an interim order had modified the Single Judge's judgment and an identical matter was pending before the Supreme Court. (Question of law, turning on the principles of judicial precedent and pending litigation). 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to a 100% refund when the matter was pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court. (Question of law, concerning the conditions for refund entitlement during ongoing litigation). 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondent was entitled to a 100% refund when the respondent had not challenged the amending Notifications No. 19/2008 dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008 dated 10.06.2008 before the appropriate forum. (Question of law, concerning the necessity of challenging specific statutory amendments for claiming relief). Contentions of the Appellant (Revenue): The Tribunal erred by relying on a Single Judge's order that was under challenge and subject to modification by higher courts. The respondent should not be entitled to a full refund while the matter is sub judice. The respondent's failure to challenge the amending notifications should preclude them from claiming the refund. Contentions of the Respondent (Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited): Not recorded in the judgment.