Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Dhanuka Agitech LTD.

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No.81/2019 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending this, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is subject to two conditions: first, the appellant (revenue) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Second, upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the stay would be effective for the remaining amount. The Court also allowed MCC No. 102/2019, dispensing with the providing of the certified copy of the impugned order. The appeal was listed for May 14, 2019, along with connected matters.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.81/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated September 4, 2018, concerning appeals E/51312/2014 to E/51314/2014. The respondent is Dhanuka Agitech Ltd. The CESTAT order dealt with refund claims. The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal is subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in this matter, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The Court also dealt with MCC No. 102/2019, allowing an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No.81/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises issues pending in LPAOW No.123/2011 and the revenue's reliance on a Supreme Court order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner seeks admission of the appeal for hearing. They rely 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 their favour. The petitioner argues that the present appeal's subject matter is under consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011, implying a need for the appeal to be heard. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that they are the entrepreneur claiming refunds.