Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Insecticides INDIA LTD.

Held

The Court admitted the application for dispensing with the filing of a certified copy of the CESTAT order. For CEA No.153/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted, with the matter to be heard alongside CEA No.9/2018. In the interim, the Court granted a conditional stay on the payment of the balance amount. The stay is subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT order to the respondent, upon the respondent furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing the surety. The reasoning for admitting the appeal or granting the interim relief is not elaborated in this order, as it is primarily procedural, directing notice and setting interim conditions. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, is the appellant, and Insecticides India Ltd. is the respondent. The appeal concerns an order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/52173/2015. The appellant relies on an earlier order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the High Court in CEA No.09/2018, where notice was issued to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted and interim directions were granted. The High Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the present appeal should not be admitted, with the matter to be taken up along with CEA No.9/2018. In the interim, the Court directed that upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due under the impugned CESTAT order to the respondent, subject to furnishing solvent surety, the payment of the balance amount would remain stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise) against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) should be admitted. The appellant relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No.09/2018, suggesting grounds for admission. The respondent's arguments are not recorded. 2. Whether interim directions should be granted pending the admission of the appeal. The appellant seeks to stay the payment of the balance amount due under the CESTAT order. The respondent's stance on this is not recorded. The core of the dispute revolves around the admission of the appeal and the grant of a stay on the payment of dues determined by the CESTAT.