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 admission of the appeal (CEA No. 57/2018), the Court issued notice to the respondent for February 20, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing, referencing reliance on an earlier order in CEA No. 09/2018. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment, 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 listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Facts
This matter involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (the appellant/revenue) against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed orders in multiple appeal numbers concerning Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent/assessee). The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The High Court noted that a previous appeal, CEA No. 09/2018, had been filed, and notice had been issued with interim directions. The present appeal, CEA No. 57/2018, was filed in relation to the CESTAT's order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant (revenue) against the CESTAT's order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. The appellant contended that they were relying on an earlier order passed by the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions granted, suggesting a prima facie case for admission. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. What interim directions, if any, should be granted pending the admission of the appeal. The appellant sought to stay the payment of the balance amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment, subject to certain conditions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 311/2018 Regular list Item No.15 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 311/2018 c/w CEA No. 57/2018, 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. 311/2018
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. 57/2018 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.