Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. V M C O Alloys

Held

The Court allowed the application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the appeal itself, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why it should not be admitted for hearing, listing it for May 13, 2019. Crucially, the Court directed that subject to the appellant (petitioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT's impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, to the respondent, the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent would be stayed. This stay is conditional upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal at this stage but provided interim relief.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (the petitioner) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated August 29, 2018, concerning refund claims by VMCO Alloys (the respondent). The CESTAT had passed orders in appeal numbers E/55712/2014 to E/55722/2014. 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 petitioner to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment, subject to which the recovery of the remaining refund amount would be stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's order dated August 29, 2018, in appeal numbers E/55712/2014 to E/55722/2014, should be admitted for hearing. The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, likely argued for admission based on the pendency of related matters and a Supreme Court order. The respondent, VMCO Alloys, would have had the opportunity to present their arguments upon issuance of notice. 2. Whether the recovery of the remaining refund amount claimed by the respondent should be stayed pending the admission of the appeal. The petitioner would have argued for a stay to protect revenue, while the respondent would have argued against it to secure their refund.