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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent (Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) to show cause as to why the appeal (CEA No. 19/2018) should not be admitted for hearing. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised in the appeal is the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. Relying on an order dated January 13, 2012, passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, the Court had previously issued an interim order in favour of the Revenue in the connected matter. Consequently, the Court directed that the Revenue's obligation to pay the full amount as per the CESTAT judgment dated March 20, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, provided the appellant (Revenue) releases 50% of the amount due to the respondent and the respondent furnishes a solvent surety for the balance within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The appeal was listed for further hearing along with connected matters.

Facts

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K (Revenue) filed an appeal (CEA No. 19/2018) against an order dated March 20, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/51330-51336 and E/56026-56031/2014-DB. The CESTAT order was in favour of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent/Assessee). The Revenue's appeal concerns a dispute regarding refund claims made by the respondent. The High Court noted that the issue was similar to one pending in LPAOW No. 123/2011, which had an interim order in favour of the Revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The High Court issued notice to the respondent and directed the appellant to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment to the respondent, subject to the respondent furnishing a solvent surety for the remaining amount claimed as refund.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue (CEA No. 19/2018) should be admitted for hearing, considering its similarity to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. Petitioner/Appellant (Revenue) argued that the issue is identical to a matter already under consideration and that an interim order in their favour was previously granted based on a Supreme Court decision. Respondent (Assessee) did not record arguments in the judgment, but the court issued notice to them to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. The court's interim directions suggest the respondent's potential arguments would relate to securing their refund claim.