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 to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent would be subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 20, 2018. This interim relief is further conditioned upon the appellant furnishing 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 at this stage, focusing on procedural aspects and interim measures. The primary finding is that the appeal warrants further consideration, hence the issuance of notice.

Facts

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, is the appellant in CEA No. 21/2018. The respondent is Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The appeal concerns an order dated March 20, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/51330-51336 and 56026-56031/2014-DB. The appellant submitted that the issue in this case is similar to one being considered in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The High Court issued notice to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, it directed that the respondent's claim for refund would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount, provided the appellant releases 50% of the amount due to them as per the CESTAT judgment and furnishes a solvent surety for the rest within four weeks of furnishing such surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be admitted for hearing, considering its similarity to LPAOW No. 123/2011. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K, argued that the issue in the present appeal is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. They relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in that matter, based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that they are the respondent entrepreneur in the matter.