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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. This indicates a preliminary view that the appeal has arguable points warranting further consideration. The Court also granted an interim relief to the respondent entrepreneur by directing the appellant (Revenue) to release 50% of the amount due under the impugned CESTAT order, provided the appellant furnishes solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. This interim measure aims to protect the respondent's financial interests while the appeal is pending. The payment of the balance amount is stayed until further orders, contingent upon the furnishing of the surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself at this stage, focusing on the admission process and interim arrangements.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, J&K Jammu (Revenue) filed an appeal (CEA No. 119/2019) against an order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in multiple appeal numbers. The CESTAT had passed an order in favour of B. R. Agrotech Limited (Petitioner/Respondent). The Revenue sought admission of their appeal. The High Court noted that a similar matter was pending before it, where notice had been issued. The Court directed the appellant (Revenue) to release 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT order to the respondent entrepreneur, subject to furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. Upon furnishing the surety, the payment of the balance amount would remain stayed. The Court also issued notice to the respondents for 02.07.2019 to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is fit for admission, considering the pendency of a similar matter before this Court where notice has already been issued. (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner (Revenue): Relied on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09.2018, where notice had been issued to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted and directions were also issued. This suggests a precedent for admitting similar appeals. Respondent (B. R. Agrotech Limited): No arguments recorded for the respondent at this stage.