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

Held

The Court decided to admit the appeal for hearing, noting that the issue raised is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. Regarding the stay of the CESTAT's order, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, would be stayed with respect to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant (Revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT's judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay would be effective upon the furnishing of a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the final adjudication on the merits of the appeal is pending.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Revenue) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed an order dated August 29, 2018, in several appeals (E/52738/2015, E/52739/2015, E/53029/2014 to E/53033/2014, E/54803/2014 to E/54805/2014, E/60157/2018 and E/60910/2018) in favour of Biostadt India Ltd. (Respondent). The Revenue sought to stay the operation of the CESTAT's order. The High Court also considered an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The Revenue's appeal was admitted to hearing, and notice was issued to the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering it raises issues that are subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the CESTAT should be stayed, and if so, under what conditions. (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Revenue): The Revenue argued that the issue in the present case is similar to the one being considered in LPAOW No.123/2011. They also relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in a Supreme Court matter (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010) to support their plea for a stay. The Revenue sought to stay the impugned judgment concerning the amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. Respondent (Biostadt India Ltd.): The respondent, through their counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent at this stage regarding the merits of the appeal or the stay application.