Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. Pending this determination, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated March 20, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) releasing 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Additionally, the appellant must furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the interim relief sought.

Facts

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, is the appellant in this matter, challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The respondent is Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The CESTAT had passed an impugned judgment dated March 20, 2018, in appeal numbers E/51330-51336 and E/56026-56031/2014-DB. The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal is subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue, relying on a Supreme Court order. The High Court was considering whether to admit the appeal for hearing and issued a notice to show cause.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) should be admitted for hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011. Contentions: Petitioner (Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K): Relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in LPAOW No. 123/2011, which in turn was based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. The petitioner sought to stay the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment. Respondent (Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that they are the respondent entrepreneur in whose favour the CESTAT judgment was passed.