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 to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending this, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. The appellant must also 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.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.143/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated August 29, 2018, concerning appeal numbers E/55712/2014 to E/55722/2014. The respondent is V M C O Alloys. The High Court was considering an application (MCC No. 186/2019) to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The primary issue in CEA No.143/2019 is subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No.143/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner seeks admission of the appeal for hearing, highlighting the ongoing consideration of a similar issue in LPAOW No.123/2011 and the precedent set by the Supreme Court's interim order in favour of the revenue. Respondent's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.