Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise,Jammu vs. Shiva Industries

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No.77/2019, asking them to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. The Court acknowledged that the issue is under consideration in another matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) and that an interim order favoring the revenue had been previously granted. Regarding the interim relief, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with respect to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant (revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay would be effective upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. In MCC No. 100/2019, the application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order was allowed. The Court expressly left undecided the final merits of CEA No.77/2019, as it was only at the stage of issuing notice.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.77/2019) against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on August 31, 2018, concerning refund claims by the respondent, Shiva Industries. The CESTAT's order was in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal was subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court also dealt with MCC No. 100/2019, allowing an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue (CEA No.77/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it involves issues similar to LPAOW No.123/2011 and a prior interim order in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court decision. The petitioner argued for admission, highlighting the Supreme Court's stance and the ongoing consideration of similar matters. The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text. 2. The procedural issue of dispensing with the certified copy of an impugned order in MCC No. 100/2019 was addressed. The petitioner sought this dispensation. The respondent's position on this procedural matter is not recorded.