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

Held

The Court allowed the application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, thereby addressing the procedural aspect. Regarding the appeal itself, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing, indicating that the admission of the appeal was not yet decided. Crucially, the Court granted an interim relief by directing that the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent be stayed. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (petitioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment and furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the final admission of the appeal.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (petitioner) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed an impugned judgment on August 29, 2018, concerning several appeals filed by Biostadt India Ltd. (respondent). The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The present case was stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011, with an interim order previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The High Court issued notice to the respondent and directed that the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent be stayed, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the certified copy of the impugned order needs to be provided for the appeal to be heard? (Procedural issue) 2. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering it is subject matter of consideration in another pending appeal and an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue? (Merits/Procedural issue) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, implying it was not essential for the immediate proceedings. The petitioner also relied on a previous interim order in their favour in a related matter, suggesting a prima facie case. The petitioner's primary contention appears to be the stay of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, pending the final decision. Respondent's arguments: Mr. Anchit H. Sharma accepted notice on behalf of the respondent, indicating their appearance and willingness to contest the appeal. No specific arguments for the respondent are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the case or the stay application.