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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No.104/2019 to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised is subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and referenced a Supreme Court order that had previously granted an interim order in favour of the Revenue. Regarding interim relief, the Court directed that the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent be stayed. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (Revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT's impugned judgment dated September 4, 2018, and furnishing 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.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Revenue) filed CEA No. 104/2019 against Insecticides India Ltd. (Respondent). The Revenue's appeal concerns issues that are also under consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The Supreme Court had previously issued an interim order in favour of the Revenue in a related matter. The impugned judgment, dated September 4, 2018, was passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in multiple appeal numbers (E/53826/2014 to E/53830/2014, E/54917/2014, E/55606/2014 to E/56609/2014). The High Court directed notice to be issued to the respondent and, in the interim, stayed the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue (CEA No.104/2019) should be admitted for hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and the Supreme Court's prior order. (Question of law). Petitioner/Appellant (Revenue) argued that the issue is pending consideration in another matter and that a Supreme Court order favoured the Revenue. Respondent (Insecticides India Ltd.) did not present arguments at this stage, as the court was issuing notice to show cause. 2. What interim directions should be issued pending the final disposal of the appeal? (Mixed question of law and fact). No specific arguments were recorded for this issue, but the court's order reflects its consideration of the matter.