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, Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd., to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. This addresses the first issue. Regarding the second issue, the Court granted interim directions. It 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 ordered that the appeal be listed along with CEA 09/2018. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
This matter involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on March 23, 2018. 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 is seeking to have the appeal admitted to hearing and has requested interim directions. The respondent is Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. The High Court has also dealt with a miscellaneous civil petition (MCC No. 302/2018) related to the case, dispensing with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, against the CESTAT's order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted to hearing. The appellant's contention is that notice should be issued to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether interim directions should be granted pending the admission of the appeal. The appellant seeks a stay on the payment of the balance amount due under the impugned CESTAT order, subject to certain conditions. The respondent's arguments on this issue are not recorded.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC No. 302/2018 Regular List Serial No. 29
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU c/w CEA No. 48/2018, IA No. 2018
Date of order:-27.11.2018 Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K
Vs. Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE Appearing counsel:
For Appellant/Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate For Respondent (s) :
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. 48/2018 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 issued to show cause as to why the
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.