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 for 02.07.2019 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. This indicates that the Court found merit in the appellant's plea for admission of the appeal, at least to the extent of requiring the respondent to respond. In the interim, the Court granted partial relief to the appellant by staying the payment of the balance amount of the impugned order, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the due amount to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety. The reasoning for the interim order appears to be to protect the revenue while also providing some relief to the respondent, pending a final decision on the admission of the appeal. The ratio decidendi for this interim order is that a balance needs to be struck between protecting potential revenue and ensuring that the respondent is not unduly prejudiced during the pendency of the appeal, especially when the appeal itself is yet to be admitted. The Court also allowed the application for dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the CESTAT order.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against an order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/55608/2014. The respondent is Insecticides India Ltd. The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the CESTAT order. The High Court issued notice to the respondent for 02.07.2019 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT order to the respondent entrepreneur, upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be admitted. The appellant relied 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 as to why the appeal be not admitted. The appellant's contention is that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the aforementioned case, warranting the issuance of a similar notice. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment as they were not present or did not argue at this stage. The Court had to decide whether to admit the appeal and what interim directions, if any, were necessary pending final disposal.