Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Insecticides INDIA LTD.

Held

The Court decided the following: 1. In MCC No. 138/2019, the application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order was allowed. 2. In CEA No. 105/2019, notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending admission, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refund by the respondent would be stayed. This stay would be effective upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court relied on an interim order previously issued in favour of the revenue, referencing a Supreme Court order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (petitioner) filed MCC No. 138/2019 and CEA No. 105/2019 against Insecticides India Ltd. (respondent). MCC No. 138/2019 sought dispensation of providing a certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 105/2019 concerned an issue that was subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The High Court issued notice to the respondent and directed that, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in various appeal numbers, the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refund by the respondent would be stayed upon furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the certified copy of the impugned order needs to be provided by the petitioner in MCC No. 138/2019? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought dispensation of providing the certified copy, and the application was allowed by the Court. 2. Whether the appeal (CEA No. 105/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises an issue subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011, and what interim relief should be granted pending admission? Petitioner's argument: The issue is pending consideration in another matter, and an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. Respondent's argument: Not recorded in the judgment.