Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Nitin Enterprises
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. Pending the admission of the appeal, the Court directed that the respondent entrepreneur (Nitin Enterprises) should be released 50% of the amount due to them as per the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 20, 2018. This payment is to be made subject to the appellant (Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K) furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent will be effective only after these conditions are met. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself at this stage.
Facts
The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, filed an appeal (CEA No. 13/2018) against an order dated March 20, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT order, in appeal numbers E/51330-51336 and 56026-56031/2014-DB, was in favour of the respondent, Nitin Enterprises. The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal was subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue in that matter, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court issued notice to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, against the CESTAT order dated March 20, 2018, should be admitted for hearing, considering it involves issues similar to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K): Argued that the issue is pending consideration in another appeal (LPAOW No. 123/2011) and that an interim order was previously granted in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court decision. Respondent (Nitin Enterprises): No specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding admission of the appeal. The judgment focuses on interim directions.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or interpreted, only the CESTAT order and Supreme Court order are referenced.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 45 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU MCC No. 258/2018 c/w CEA No. 13/2018, IA No. 01/2018 Date of order: 19.11.2018
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise J&K vs. Nitin Enterprises.
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant (s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
MCC NO. 258/2018
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, providing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No. 13/2018 It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. In this appeal placing reliance on order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue. Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted to hearing. In the meantime, it is directed that subject to appellant releasing 50% of the amount due to them in
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.