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 filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant (Commissioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 23, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur, upon furnishing a 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 for dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. The appeal was listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Facts
This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K 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. The Commissioner is seeking to challenge this CESTAT order. The High Court has been asked to consider admitting the appeal to hearing and has issued interim directions. The petitioner is the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, and the respondent is Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. The tax periods are not explicitly stated but relate to the appeals before the CESTAT. The order under challenge is the CESTAT's judgment dated March 23, 2018.
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. Arguments: Petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K): The petitioner relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued and interim directions were granted, suggesting a prima facie case for admission. The petitioner seeks to stay the operation of the CESTAT's order pending the admission of their appeal. Respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage. The court issued notice to the respondent to show cause.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC No. 299/2018 Regular List Serial No. 26
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU c/w CEA No. 44/2018, 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. 44/2018 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.