Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Hitachi Home And Life Solutions INDIA LTD.

Held

The Court allowed the application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the appeal itself (CEA No.150/2019), the Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 5, 2018, to the respondent (Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Ltd.), the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent would be stayed. This stay would be effective upon the appellant furnishing 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, deferring admission to a later date.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (petitioner) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed an order dated September 5, 2018, in appeal numbers E/51740/2014 to E/51746/2014, concerning refunds claimed by Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Ltd. (respondent). The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The High Court noted that the issue was subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and that an interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue in a related Supreme Court matter. The Court issued notice to the respondent and directed the appellant to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment, subject to which the remaining refund claim would be stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's order dated September 5, 2018, concerning refund claims by Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Ltd., should be admitted for hearing. This issue turns on the merits of the appeal and the applicability of previous orders. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The petitioner also relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in a related Supreme Court matter (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010) and the pendency of LPAOW No.123/2011, indicating a potential for the appeal to be admitted. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that they are the claimant for refunds.