Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Bbf Industries

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable before the High Court. This decision was based on a prior Division Bench judgment of the same Court in CEA No.05/2018 (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Jammu v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited), decided on August 21, 2019. In that case, it was opined that the jurisdiction to entertain such appeals lay with the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, for the same reasons, the present appeal against the Tribunal's order was deemed not maintainable. The Court directed the Registry to return the original paper book to the appellant's counsel, after retaining a photocopy, to enable them to present it before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The specific questions of law raised by the revenue were not decided on merits due to the finding on maintainability.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal's order, dated February 21, 2019, was in Appeal No.E/53509-53510/2014 concerning BBF Industries Unit-III. The revenue's appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's reliance on a Single Judge's order which was under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, and the entitlement of the respondent to a 100% refund while the matter was pending before higher courts. The appellant's counsel conceded that the issue was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in passing its judgment by relying on a Single Judge's order that was itself under challenge before a Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court, particularly when an interim order had modified the Single Judge's decision. (Question of law, concerning the application of precedent and pending litigation). 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondent was entitled to a 100% refund, given that the matter was pending disposal before the High Court and the Supreme Court. (Question of law, concerning the finality of relief in light of ongoing appeals). Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): Argued that the Tribunal's reliance on a Single Judge's order, which was under appeal and subject to modification by interim orders, was erroneous. They also questioned the Tribunal's decision to grant a full refund while the matter was sub judice before higher courts. Respondent: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent. However, the Tribunal's order, which is under challenge, presumably supported the respondent's claim for refund.