Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court allowed the application to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the appeal itself, the Court issued notice to the respondent for February 20, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to a hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the 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 to the respondent entrepreneur upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The appeal was ordered to be listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (the appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The appeal concerns an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on March 23, 2018, in a series of appeal numbers. The appellant sought to challenge this CESTAT order. The High Court was also considering an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant placed reliance on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions were granted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be admitted for hearing, considering the interim directions issued in a related matter (CEA No. 09/2018)? Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant relied on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, indicating that the Court had already issued notice and interim directions in a similar matter, suggesting a potential for the current appeal to be admitted. Respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage. The Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 306/2018 Regular list Item No.10 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 306/2018 c/w CEA No. 52/2018, 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. 306/2018
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. 52/2018 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.