Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd., for February 20, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that payment of the balance amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 23, 2018, shall remain stayed, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due. This release is to be made to the respondent entrepreneur upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The appeal is to be listed along with CEA 09/2018. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage, focusing on procedural aspects and interim relief.
Facts
This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed a judgment on March 23, 2018, in a series of appeals (E/51135/2015-E/51138/2015, etc.) concerning Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. The Commissioner is challenging this CESTAT order. The High Court was considering an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The Court also considered the appellant's reliance on a previous order (CEA No. 09/2018) where notice had been issued and interim directions were granted. The present appeal seeks admission to hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu against the CESTAT's order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. Petitioner/Appellant's Contention: The appellant relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued and interim directions were granted, suggesting a prima facie case for admission. Respondent's Contention: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.) regarding the admission of the appeal. The judgment only notes that notice is to be issued to them.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 322/2018 Suppl.list Item No.5 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 322/2018 c/w CEA No. 66/2018, IA No. 01/2018
Date of order: 28.11.2018 Commissioner of Central GST and Central; Excise, J&K, Jammu Vs. Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE Appearing counsel(s): For Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate For respondent (s) :
MCC NO. 322/2018
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, filing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No. 66/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on an earlier order passed by this Court in CEA No. 09/2018, in which notice has been is
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.