Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Ultimate Flexi Pack LTD.
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending the admission of the appeal, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated August 28, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT's judgment to the respondent, and furnishing 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 primary focus was on admitting the appeal and granting interim relief.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (appellant) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on August 28, 2018. The CESTAT's order, in appeal numbers E/1660/2011 to E/1664/2011 and E/1671/2011, concerned a refund claimed by Ultimate Flexi Pack Ltd. (respondent). The High Court considered an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The appellant submitted that the issue in the present case is similar to one pending in LPAOW No.123/2011, where an interim order was issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering the pendency of a similar matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and a Supreme Court order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010 which had led to an interim order in favour of the revenue. Petitioner's contention: The appellant argued that the issue is subject to consideration in a connected matter and that an interim order was previously granted in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court decision, implying a need for similar consideration in this case. Respondent's contention: No specific contention is recorded for the respondent regarding the admission of the appeal.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text as being discussed for their merits, beyond the context of the CESTAT's order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 16 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 123/2019 c/w CEA No.93/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 01.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. Ultimate Flexi Pack Ltd. \
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.123/2019:
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, providing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No.93/2019: It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. In this appeal placing reliance on order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue.
Page
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.