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 should not be admitted for hearing. Pending further consideration, the Court granted an interim stay on the remaining amount claimed as refund by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releasing 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT judgment dated August 29, 2018, to the respondent. Additionally, the appellant must furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage, focusing on procedural aspects and interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on August 29, 2018, concerning refund claims by the respondent, V M C O Alloys. The CESTAT order was in appeal numbers E/55712/2014 to E/55722/2014. The High Court considered an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The Court noted that the issue in the present case was similar to one pending in LPAOW No. 123/2011, where an interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The Court issued notice to the respondent and granted an interim stay on the remaining refund amount, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT order dated August 29, 2018, concerning refund claims by V M C O Alloys, should be admitted for hearing. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in a connected matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011), which was based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. This suggests a prima facie case for admitting the appeal. Respondent's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondent at this stage, as notice was issued to them to show cause.