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

Held

The Court allowed the application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order (MCC No. 104/2019). For CEA No.82/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. Pending further consideration, the Court directed that the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, provided the appellant (petitioner) releases 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent. The remaining amount would be stayed upon the appellant furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. 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.82/2019) 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 appears to have directed a refund to the respondent. The petitioner sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 104/2019. The High Court noted that the issue in CEA No.82/2019 was subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011, and an interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue in that matter, relying on a Supreme Court order. The Court issued notice to the respondent in CEA No.82/2019 and granted interim relief subject to conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No.82/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and the Supreme Court's order in SLP (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. (Procedural/Admissibility Issue) 2. Whether the impugned CESTAT order dated September 4, 2018, directing a refund to the respondent, should be stayed pending further consideration. (Substantive Issue) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relied on the pendency of a related matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and a Supreme Court order to argue for interim relief. They sought to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent in the provided text. The judgment mentions issuing notice to the respondent to show cause.