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, Insecticides India Ltd., to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending the admission of the appeal, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Additionally, the appellant must furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety for the remaining amount. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the interim relief sought.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (appellant) filed CEA No. 107/2019 against Insecticides India Ltd. (respondent). The appeal concerns issues that are also under consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The appellant relies on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, where an interim order was issued in favor of the revenue. The impugned judgment is dated September 4, 2018, 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 respondent entrepreneur had claimed a refund. MCC No. 140/2019 was an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and the Supreme Court's interim order in a related matter. Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellant relies on the Supreme Court's order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, which led to an interim order in favor of the revenue. This suggests a basis for admitting the present appeal. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent regarding the admission of the appeal. The judgment only directs to issue notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 30 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 140/2019 c/w CEA No.107/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 01.04.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. Insecticides India Ltd. \
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.140/2019:
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, providing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No.107/2019: It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. In this appeal placing reliance on order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue.
Pag
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.