Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. V M C O Alloys

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, V M C O Alloys, to show cause as to why the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise should not be admitted. This indicates that the Court has not yet made a final decision on the merits of the appeal but has found sufficient grounds to proceed with hearing the respondent. The Court also granted interim relief by directing that 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT order dated 29.08.2018 shall be released to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. The payment of the balance amount has been stayed pending further orders. The Court has not decided the substantive issues of the appeal but has admitted the matter for further consideration and provided interim protection to the respondent.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, is the appellant, and V M C O Alloys is the respondent. The appeal concerns an order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/55713/2014. The appellant is seeking admission of the appeal and has placed reliance on an earlier order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued and interim directions were granted. The High Court has issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the Court directed that 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT order shall be released to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety, and the payment of the balance amount shall 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. This issue turns on the provisions governing appeals to the High Court from CESTAT orders, likely under Section 131A of the Customs Act, 1962, or equivalent provisions under GST law, concerning substantial questions of law. The appellant relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, suggesting a precedent for admission or at least further consideration. The respondent's arguments are not recorded as they were not yet heard on the admission of the appeal. The Court is to decide whether to admit the appeal for hearing on merits.