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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. This indicates a preliminary step towards considering the merits of the appeal. The Court also granted an interim order, directing that 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated August 29, 2018, be released to the respondent. This release is conditional upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. Upon fulfillment of these conditions, the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent would be stayed. The Court did not decide the substantive issues of the appeal at this stage, but rather focused on procedural aspects and interim relief.

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 a judgment dated August 29, 2018, in multiple appeal numbers concerning the respondent, Biostadt India Ltd. The Revenue sought to challenge this CESTAT order. The High Court considered an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The Revenue also submitted that the issue in the present case was under consideration in another LPAOW. The Court issued notice to the respondent and listed the matter for hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment be released to the respondent, subject to furnishing solvent surety for the remaining amount, after which the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent would be stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue against the CESTAT order dated August 29, 2018, should be admitted for hearing, considering it involves issues subject to consideration in other pending matters (LPAOW No.123/2011) and a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in SLP (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, which had previously resulted in an interim order in favour of the Revenue. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Revenue): Argued that the issue is pending consideration in other matters and relied on the Supreme Court's interim order in a related matter. Respondent (Biostadt India Ltd.): Accepted notice. No specific arguments recorded at this stage.