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 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that, subject to the appellant 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 Court also allowed an application to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. The appeal was listed along with CEA 09/2018.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court 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 filed by Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. (respondent). The appellant sought to challenge this CESTAT judgment. The High Court was also considering an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant relied 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 against the CESTAT's order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. This question turns on the merits of the appeal and the grounds for admission. Contentions: Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): Relied on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions were granted, suggesting a prima facie case for admission. Respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.): No arguments recorded in the judgment for the respondent at this stage.