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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted, indicating that the admission of the appeal was not yet decided. The Court also granted interim relief by directing that 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT order be released to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety. The payment of the remaining balance amount was stayed pending further orders. The reasoning for the interim relief appears to be a measure to secure the revenue while also providing partial relief to the respondent. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, only on the procedural aspects of admission and interim measures. The issue of admission of the appeal remains to be decided on the next date.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court against an order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/52172/2015. The CESTAT's order was in favour of Insecticides India Ltd (respondent). The appellant sought to admit the appeal and also sought interim directions. The High Court, on 21.05.2019, allowed an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the CESTAT order. The Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted, listing the matter for 02.07.2019. In the interim, the Court directed that 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT order be released to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety, while 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. This issue turns on the merits of the grounds for appeal, though not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The appellant relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018. 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 position on interim relief is not recorded. The appellant's contention is based on the pendency of the appeal and the need to secure the revenue, while the respondent's likely contention would be to secure the benefit of the CESTAT order.