Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court allowed the application in MCC No. 286/2018, dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding CEA No. 33/2018, the Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing, placing reliance on an earlier order in CEA No. 09/2018 where notice had also been issued. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment, 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 appeal is to be listed along with CEA 09/2018. No specific finding was given on the merits of the appeal itself, only on the admission and interim relief.

Facts

This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu, against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal is filed in conjunction with MCC No. 286/2018, which pertains to an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant (Revenue) is seeking admission of the appeal to hearing and has also sought interim directions. The respondent is Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. The dispute involves several appeals before the CESTAT, the specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in this order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant (Revenue) should be admitted to hearing, as per Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (or equivalent provision under GST law, though not explicitly stated). The appellant relies on an earlier order of this Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued. The appellant argues for the admission of the appeal based on the precedent set in the earlier case. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in this order. 2. Whether interim directions should be granted to stay the payment of the balance amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due. The appellant seeks this stay to protect its interests pending the admission and final disposal of the appeal.