Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu 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 respondent for February 20, 2019, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT's impugned judgment dated March 23, 2018, 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 directed 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 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed an order on March 23, 2018, in a series of appeals filed by Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. (respondent). The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The High Court noted that a similar appeal (CEA No. 09/2018) was pending, where notice had been issued and interim directions were granted. The present appeal was listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be admitted to hearing, considering the pendency of a similar matter (CEA No. 09/2018) where notice had been issued and interim directions granted. Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu): The appellant relied on the earlier order passed by 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. Contentions of the Respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent at this stage. However, the interim directions granted by the court indicate that the respondent's interests were to be protected.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 315/2018 Regular list Item No.19 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 315/2018 c/w CEA No. 61/2018, 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. 315/2018
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. 61/2018 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.