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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending further consideration, the Court directed that the refund claimed by the respondent, as per the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 5, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount, subject to the appellant (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment. 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, only directing the issuance of notice and granting conditional interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.145/2019) against an order dated September 5, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/51740/2014 to E/51746/2014. The respondent is Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Ltd. The CESTAT order, which is impugned, pertains to a claim for refund by the respondent. The High Court also considered MCC No. 188/2019, an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The issue in CEA No.145/2019 was stated to be the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. The revenue had previously obtained an interim order in its favour based on a Supreme Court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue (petitioner) should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and a previous interim order in favour of the revenue. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural admissibility and prior judicial pronouncements). Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise): Argued that the issue is pending consideration in another matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and that an interim order was previously granted in their favour based on a Supreme Court order. They sought admission of the appeal. Respondent (Hitachi Home and Life Solutions India Ltd.): No specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the admission of the appeal or the merits of the refund claim at this stage.