Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Parental Pahrma PVT.LTD.

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Parental Pharma Pvt. Ltd., for July 2, 2019, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. This indicates that the Court found arguable points in the appeal. Regarding interim relief, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT order, upon furnishing 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 reasoning for this interim order is to secure the revenue while allowing the appeal to proceed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, only on the admission and interim relief.

Facts

This case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on August 29, 2018, concerning appeal numbers E/53960/2014, E/53961/2014, E/53962/2014, and E/53963/2014. The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, J&K Jammu, is the petitioner/appellant, and Parental Pharma Pvt. Ltd. is the respondent. The specific tax period and the exact amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the filing of MCC No. 158/2019 and CEA No. 115/2019, along with an interim application (IA No. 1/2019). The High Court considered an application to dispense with the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, J&K Jammu, against the CESTAT order dated August 29, 2018, should be admitted for hearing. The petitioner/appellant relies on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09.2018, where notice was issued to show cause against admission. The revenue's contention is that the appeal raises arguable points warranting admission. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the provided text. 2. Whether interim directions should be granted pending the admission of the appeal. The petitioner/appellant sought a stay on the payment of the balance amount due under the impugned CESTAT order, subject to certain conditions. The respondent's stance on this interim relief is not recorded.