Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise,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. This indicates that the Court has not yet made a final determination on the merits of the appeal. The Court also granted an interim direction, staying the operation of the CESTAT judgment dated August 31, 2018, concerning the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releasing 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Furthermore, the appellant must furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety for the stay to remain effective regarding the remaining amount. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary issue of admitting the appeal for hearing is pending further response from the respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.83/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated August 31, 2018, concerning refund claims. The CESTAT had passed judgment in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The present appeal is stated to be subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. An interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue in this matter, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court issued notice to the respondent (Shiva Industries) and directed the appellant to release 50% of the amount due as per the CESTAT judgment. The operation of the CESTAT judgment concerning the remaining refund amount was stayed, subject to the appellant furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering its pendency in LPAOW No.123/2011 and the interim order issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. Arguments for the Petitioner (Revenue): The revenue contended that the issue in the present appeal is similar to that being considered in LPAOW No.123/2011. They relied on an interim order previously granted in their favour, which was based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, suggesting a favorable view for the revenue on the subject matter. Arguments for the Respondent (Shiva Industries): No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent in the provided text regarding the admission of the appeal. The court directed notice to be issued to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted.