Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K, 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. The Court also directed that the impugned judgment, which allowed refund claims to the respondent, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded, subject to the appellant (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment. This stay is conditional upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage but granted an interim measure to protect the revenue's interest while the appeal is pending admission. No issues were expressly left undecided, but the primary issue of admitting the appeal for hearing is to be addressed after the respondent shows cause.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.103/2019) against an order dated August 28, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/1660/2011 to E/1664/2011 and E/1671/2011. The CESTAT order pertained to refund claims made by the respondent, Ultimate Flexi Pack Ltd. The High Court also considered MCC No. 136/2019, an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The core of the dispute revolves around refund amounts claimed by the respondent. The Court noted that the issue in the present appeal was subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and that an interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue in a related Supreme Court matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering its subject matter is under consideration in other proceedings and a Supreme Court order was previously relied upon for an interim order in favour of the revenue. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relies on the fact that the issue is pending consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and references a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, which previously led to an interim order in their favour. They seek admission of the appeal. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent's specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment only notes the submission that the issue is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011.