Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court allowed the application for dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the appeal itself, the Court issued notice to the respondents, directing them to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to 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 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.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal concerns multiple appeal numbers before the CESTAT, including E/51135/2015 to E/51146/2015, E/54918/2014 to E/54938/2014, and E/60296/2016 to E/60300/2016. The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned CESTAT order. The High Court also considered an earlier order passed by it in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions were granted. The present appeal is listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) against the CESTAT order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. This issue turns on the merits of the appeal and the grounds on which it is based, though the specific grounds are not detailed in this order. The appellant relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued to show cause against admission. The respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.) has not recorded arguments in this specific order. The court is to decide whether to admit the appeal for a full hearing.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 310/2018 Regular list Item No.14 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 310/2018 c/w CEA No. 56/2018, 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. 310/2018
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. 56/2018 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.