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

Held

The Court held that the appeal before it was not maintainable. This decision was based on a Division Bench judgment of the same High 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 would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the present appeal against the Tribunal's order was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. 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 competent court. The specific issues raised by the revenue were not decided on merits.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) appealed 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. The appeal before the High Court concerned the refund entitlement of BBF Industries Unit-III. The revenue's primary contention was that the Tribunal erred in relying on a Single Judge's order which was under challenge before a Division Bench and the Supreme Court. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in passing its judgment by relying on a Single Judge's order from the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu in O.W.P. No. 470/08, titled 'Reckitt Benckiser V/s U.O.I and Ors', when this order was under challenge before a Division Bench of the same High Court in LPA(O.W.) No. 20/2011 and an identical matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India? (Question of law). 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondent is entitled to 100% refund when the matter was pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of J&K at Jammu and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner (revenue) argued that the Tribunal's reliance on a Single Judge's order, which was itself under challenge and subject to interim orders from higher courts, was erroneous. They contended that the matter's pendency before the High Court and Supreme Court should have precluded the Tribunal from granting a full refund. Respondent's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent.