Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise , Jammu vs. Insecticides INDIA LTD. Udhampur

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending the admission of the appeal, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 29, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to two conditions. Firstly, the appellant (petitioner) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Secondly, after furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the stay would be effective for the remaining amount. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage, only granting interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.56/2019) against an order dated August 29, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/54723/2014 to E/54729/2014. The respondent is Insecticides India Ltd. The CESTAT order appears to have directed the release of certain amounts to the respondent entrepreneur. The petitioner sought to stay the operation of this impugned judgment. The High Court also considered MCC No. 65/2019, where a certified copy of the impugned order was dispensed with. The issue in CEA No.56/2019 was stated to be subject matter of 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No.56/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises issues similar to LPAOW No.123/2011, where an interim order was previously granted in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is sub-judice in another matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) where an interim order was granted in their favour. They relied on the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage. The court issued notice to the respondent to show cause.