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 for hearing. This indicates that the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the appeal. In the interim, the Court granted a conditional stay on the balance amount due. The appellant is directed to release 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT judgment to the respondent, provided the respondent furnishes solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The payment of the remaining balance shall remain stayed. The appeal is to be listed along with CEA 09/2018. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage, focusing on procedural aspects and interim relief.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K (appellant) filed an appeal (CEA No. 42/2018) against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal concerns multiple appeal numbers before the CESTAT, relating to the period of dispute. The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The appellant also placed reliance on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions granted. The High Court issued notice to the respondent, Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd., to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the appellant was directed to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety, with the payment of the balance stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be admitted for hearing, considering the reliance placed on an earlier order of this Court in CEA No. 09/2018 where notice was issued and interim directions granted. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The appellant relies on the precedent set by this Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where a similar appeal was admitted for hearing and interim directions were issued. This suggests a prima facie case for admission. Revenue/State's Argument: No specific argument is recorded for the respondent (Revenue/State) regarding the admission of the appeal. The Court has issued notice to the respondent to show cause.