Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu. vs. Shiva Industries

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent (Shiva Industries) to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending further consideration, the Court granted an interim relief to the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise). This relief involves staying the recovery of 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 judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Additionally, the appellant must furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself at this stage, focusing on procedural steps and interim measures.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.84/2019) against a judgment concerning Shiva Industries. The matter involves issues that are also under consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The impugned judgment, dated August 31, 2018, was passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The High Court directed notice to be issued to the respondent and, in the interim, stayed the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the Tribunal's judgment and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No.84/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering its subject matter is under consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and a previous interim order favored the revenue based on a Supreme Court decision. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner 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 their favor. They contend that the present appeal should proceed, potentially admitting it to hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than the implication that they are entitled to the refund as per the Tribunal's order. The Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause.