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, Jammu, should not be admitted for hearing. This indicates that the Court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the appeal, at least for the purpose of hearing arguments from both sides. In the interim, the Court directed that the appellant (Commissioner) shall release 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 23, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. The payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed until further orders. The appeal is to be listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Facts
This matter involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT's order, dated March 23, 2018, pertains to multiple appeal numbers concerning the respondent, Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. The High Court was considering an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The appellant's counsel referred to an earlier order by the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions granted. The Court then issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. This issue turns on the merits of the appeal, which are yet to be fully argued. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu): Relied on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions granted, suggesting a prima facie case for admission. Respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.): No arguments are recorded for the respondent at this stage.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 285/2018 Regular list Item No.17 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 285/2018 c/w CEA No. 32/2018, IA No. 01/2018
Date of order: 26.11.2018 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. 285/2018
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. 32/2018 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 iss
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.