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

Held

The Court allowed the application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the appeal, 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 appeal would be admitted to hearing subject to the appellant (petitioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the CESTAT. This release was to be made to the respondent entrepreneur. Upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent would be stayed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself at this stage.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (petitioner) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed a judgment dated August 29, 2018, in several appeal numbers concerning refunds claimed by Biostadt India Ltd. (respondent). The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order and also sought an interim stay on the CESTAT's judgment. The respondent accepted notice. The High Court directed the petitioner to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT's judgment, subject to furnishing solvent surety for the remaining amount, after which the recovery of the remaining refunded amount would be stayed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the certified copy of the impugned order is required to be provided by the petitioner? (Procedural issue) 2. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner should be admitted to hearing? (Procedural issue) 3. Whether the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent should be stayed pending the admission of the appeal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. The petitioner also submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in a Supreme Court matter. The petitioner sought a stay on the CESTAT's judgment regarding the refund amount. Respondent's arguments: Mr. Anchit H. Sharma accepted notice on behalf of the respondent. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent regarding the stay or admission of the appeal in the provided text.