Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT.LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent for February 20, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that, subject to the appellant (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 23, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed. The appeal was ordered to be listed along with CEA 09/2018. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself but granted interim relief conditional on partial payment and surety.
Facts
This matter involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal pertains to multiple appeal numbers before the CESTAT, including E/51135/2015-E/51138/2015, E/51140/2015-E/51142/2015, and others. The petitioner sought dispensation with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The Court was also considering an earlier order in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions were given. The present appeal was filed by the revenue against Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu against the CESTAT order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. Petitioner's Argument: The learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) placed reliance on an earlier order passed by the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted and interim directions were also issued. This suggests the revenue believes there are grounds for admitting the appeal. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.) at this stage regarding the admission of the appeal. However, the interim directions suggest the respondent's interests are being considered.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 309/2018 Regular list Item No.13 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 309/2018 c/w CEA No. 55/2018, 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. 309/2018
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. 55/2018 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
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.