Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Parental Pharma PVT.LTD.

Held

The Court allowed the application to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the CESTAT order. Regarding the admission of the appeal (CEA No.159/2019), the Court issued notice to the respondent, returnable on July 2, 2019, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. The Court also granted interim directions, stating that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT order to the respondent entrepreneur on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing surety, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, is the appellant, and Parental Pharma Pvt. Ltd. is the respondent. The case concerns an appeal (CEA No.159/2019) against an order dated August 29, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/53966/2014. The appellant sought to dispense with filing a certified copy of the CESTAT order, which was allowed. The High Court issued notice to the respondent for July 2, 2019, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the Court directed that 50% of the amount due under the impugned CESTAT order be released to the respondent upon furnishing solvent surety, with the balance payment stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K), Jammu, against the CESTAT order dated August 29, 2018, in Appeal No. E/53966/2014, should be admitted. The appellant relies on an earlier order dated November 19, 2018, in CEA No.09/2018, where notice was issued to show cause against admission and interim directions were granted. The respondent's arguments are not recorded. 2. Whether interim directions should be granted pending the admission of the appeal. The appellant sought to stay the payment of the balance amount due under the impugned CESTAT order. The respondent's arguments are not recorded.