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. The Court also granted an interim direction staying the proceedings concerning the remaining amount of refund claimed by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated August 29, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur. Furthermore, the appellant must furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not make a final determination on the merits of the appeal at this stage, as it is an interim order pending admission of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Petitioner) filed an appeal against Biuostadt India Ltd, Jammu (Respondent). The appeal concerns a judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in multiple appeal numbers. The CESTAT's order likely pertains to a refund claimed by the respondent. The High Court allowed an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The Petitioner submitted that the issue in the present case is subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. The Court issued notice to the respondent and directed the appellant to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur, subject to furnishing solvent surety for the remaining amount within four weeks, to stay the proceedings regarding the remaining refund claimed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Petitioner) against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) should be admitted for hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that the issue raised in the present appeal is a subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and that an interim order was issued in favour of the revenue in that matter based on a Supreme Court order. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent, through its counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the Respondent at this stage, other than accepting notice.