Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Insecticides INDIA LTD.

Held

The Court allowed MCC No. 113/2019, dispensing with the requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order. For CEA No. 88/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing, indicating that the appeal's admission is not yet decided. An interim direction was granted, staying the refund of the remaining amount claimed by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, and furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The reasoning for the interim stay is to protect the revenue's interest pending the final decision on the appeal, especially given the pendency of a related matter and a prior interim order.

Facts

This matter involves multiple applications and appeals before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. MCC No. 113/2019 pertains to an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 88/2019 concerns an appeal where the issue is stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The revenue had previously obtained an interim order in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The Court issued notice to the respondent in CEA No. 88/2019 and listed it for hearing. An interim direction was also issued, staying the refund of the remaining amount claimed by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due as per a CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 113/2019 is required to be provided, as per the petitioner's application. 2. Whether the appeal in CEA No. 88/2019 should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a previous interim order in favour of the revenue. 3. Whether the refund of the remaining amount claimed by the respondent in CEA No. 88/2019 should be stayed pending further orders. Petitioner/Appellant Arguments (implied for MCC No. 113/2019): The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, indicating a procedural request. For CEA No. 88/2019, the revenue (appellant) implicitly argued for the admission of the appeal and a stay on the refund, relying on the pendency of a related matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011) and a Supreme Court order. Respondent Arguments: No specific arguments for the respondent are recorded in the provided text.