Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise,Jammu vs. Shiva Industries
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Regarding the stay of the impugned judgment, the Court directed that the operation of the judgment would be stayed with respect to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to two conditions. Firstly, the appellant (revenue) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Secondly, upon furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the stay on the remaining amount would be effective. The Court did not decide on the admission of the appeal itself, listing it for further hearing.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (appellant) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on August 31, 2018. The CESTAT's order, in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014, directed the refund of an amount to Shiva Industries (respondent). The appellant sought to stay the operation of the CESTAT's judgment. The High Court also considered MCC No. 95/2019, where a certified copy of the impugned order was dispensed with. The present case, CEA No. 76/2019, was stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011, with an interim order previously issued in favour of the revenue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's order dated August 31, 2018, directing refund to Shiva Industries, should be admitted for hearing. The appellant relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in a prior related matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011), referencing a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the operation of the CESTAT's impugned judgment, concerning the refund claimed by the respondent, should be stayed pending the admission of the appeal. The appellant sought a stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as discussed in detail, but the context implies provisions related to appeals and stay orders under GST and excise laws.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 44 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 95/2019 c/w CEA No.76/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 25.03.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise vs. Shiva Industries. \
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.95/2019:
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.76/2019: 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.
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.