Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Bbf Industries, Samba

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent (BBF Industries) to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. The Court also granted an interim direction staying the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment regarding the remaining amount claimed as refunded 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 CESTAT's judgment dated August 31, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur. Additionally, the appellant must furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The matter is listed for May 13, 2019, along with connected matters. The Court expressly left undecided the ultimate merits of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (petitioner) filed an appeal (CEA No.139/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated August 31, 2018. The CESTAT's order, in appeal numbers E/53633/2014 to E/53637/2014, concerned a refund claimed by BBF Industries (respondent). The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal was subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in this matter, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court also allowed an application (MCC No. 182/2019) to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering its subject matter is under consideration in another connected matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and a previous interim order was passed in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, which led to an interim order in their favour. They contend that the present appeal raises issues that are interconnected with existing proceedings and precedents. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent in the provided text regarding the admission of the appeal. The judgment indicates that notice is to be issued to the respondent to show cause.