Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Parental Pharma PVT.LTD.

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No. 111/2019 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. The Court acknowledged that the issue is subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and referenced a Supreme Court order that had previously favored the revenue. Regarding the stay, the Court directed that the impugned judgment of the CESTAT would be stayed concerning the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur and furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The ratio is that interim relief can be granted in revenue appeals involving substantial amounts, subject to compliance with specific conditions by the revenue, especially when the issue is pending in other related matters.

Facts

This matter involves a writ petition (MCC No. 149/2019) and a civil appeal (CEA No. 111/2019) before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. In MCC No. 149/2019, the court allowed an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. In CEA No. 111/2019, the petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, is appealing an order. The issue in this appeal is stated to be the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The revenue had previously obtained an interim order in its favour based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court issued notice to the respondent, Parental Pharma Pvt. Ltd., and directed that the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/53960/2014 to E/53967/2014, would be stayed regarding the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No. 111/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. (Question of law). The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) argued that the issue is pending consideration in a related matter and that an interim order was previously granted in their favour. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the operation of the CESTAT judgment dated August 29, 2018, should be stayed pending the admission of the appeal. (Question of mixed law and fact). The petitioner sought a stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded. The respondent's position on the stay is not explicitly recorded, but the court's order implies a conditional stay.