Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. B.R.Agrotech LTD.

Held

The Court has issued notice to the respondent for July 2, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the Court has directed that subject to the appellant (Commissioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment order dated September 6, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur, upon furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing the surety, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed. The Court has not yet decided on the admission of the appeal itself, nor has it made a final determination on the merits of the case. The issue of the amount in dispute and its release is a procedural direction pending admission.

Facts

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, J&K Jammu, against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on September 6, 2018. The appeal concerns multiple appeal numbers before the CESTAT: E/52505/2015, E/52506/2015, E/52507/2015, E/52508/2015, E/52509/2015, and E/52510/2015. The petitioner (Commissioner) is seeking to challenge the CESTAT's decision. The High Court has issued notice to the respondent, B. R. Agrotech Limited, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. A related miscellaneous civil application (MCC No. 166/2019) concerning the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order has been allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, J&K Jammu, against the CESTAT's order dated September 6, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. The petitioner's argument is based on an earlier order of this Court in CEA No. 09.2018, where notice was issued to show cause for admission and directions were also given. The petitioner relies on this precedent to argue for the admission of the current appeal. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the appellant should be directed to release 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment order, subject to furnishing a solvent surety. The Court is considering issuing directions regarding the payment of the disputed amount pending the appeal's admission.