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 for hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The appeal is listed for May 14, 2019, along with connected matters. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage.
Facts
The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.85/2019) against an order dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The respondent is Shiva Industries. The CESTAT order was in favour of the respondent, concerning amounts claimed as refunds. The High Court also considered MCC No. 107/2019, an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The present appeal raises an issue that is also under 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.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be admitted for hearing, considering its subject matter is under consideration in another connected matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and a previous interim order was in favour of the revenue. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, to support their contention that an interim order was issued in their favour. They seek admission of the appeal for hearing. Respondent's argument: No argument is recorded for the respondent in the provided text.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or interpreted, only the CESTAT appeal numbers and a Supreme Court SLP number are referenced.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 50 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 107/2019 c/w CEA No.85/2019, 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.107/2019:
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.85/2019: 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.