Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise, Jammu vs. Biostadt INDIA LTD. Jammu

Held

The Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT's judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay is further conditioned upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court also allowed an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The matter is listed for further hearing along with connected matters.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (appellant) has 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, in a series of appeals (E/52738/2015, E/52739/2015, E/53029/2014 to E/53033/2014, E/54803/2014 to E/54805/2014, E/60157/2018 and E/60910/2018) concerning Biostadt India Ltd. (respondent). The appellant sought to stay the operation of the CESTAT's judgment regarding the refund claimed by the respondent. The High Court also considered an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The present case is stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011, and an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's judgment dated August 29, 2018, concerning refund claims of Biostadt India Ltd., should be admitted for hearing. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) has filed the appeal and seeks a stay on the impugned judgment. The judgment is stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011, and an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue. Respondent's Argument: Mr. Anchit H. Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the respondent (Biostadt India Ltd.). No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent at this stage, other than acceptance of notice.