Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court allowed the application to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the admission of the appeal, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing, indicating that the appeal had arguable points. In the interim, pending admission, the Court directed that the appellant (Commissioner) must release 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT judgment to the respondent (Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd.) upon the respondent furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner. The payment of the balance amount would remain stayed, subject to this condition and within four weeks of furnishing the surety. The appeal was 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 dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had decided multiple appeals (E/51135/2015 to E/60300/2016) in favor of Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. (respondent). The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. The High Court noted that a similar appeal (CEA No. 09/2018) was already before it, with notice issued and interim directions granted. The present appeal was listed along with CEA 09/2018.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against the CESTAT's order dated March 23, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. The appellant argued that reliance was placed on an earlier order by the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice had been issued and interim directions granted, suggesting a prima facie case. The respondent's arguments are not recorded. 2. What interim directions, if any, should be granted pending the admission of the appeal. The appellant sought a stay on the operation of the impugned CESTAT order. The respondent's arguments on this point are not recorded.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, beyond the general reference to the CESTAT's order and the High Court's appellate jurisdiction.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 288/2018 Regular list Item No.20 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 288/2018 c/w CEA No. 35/2018, 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: For Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate For respondent (s) :
MCC NO. 288/2018
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. 35/2018 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
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.