Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise, Jammu vs. J And K Cement Corporation, Kathua

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No. 64/2019 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending further consideration, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, to the extent it directs the refund of the remaining amount claimed by the respondent, shall be stayed. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (petitioner) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded shall be effective. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but rather on the grant of interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed MCC No. 72/2019 and CEA No. 64/2019. MCC No. 72/2019 sought dispensation of providing a certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 64/2019 concerned an issue that was the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The Supreme Court had previously issued an interim order in favour of the revenue in a related matter. The present appeal challenged an order dated September 4, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/52523/2014 to E/52529/2014, which had directed the refund of certain amounts to the respondent, J&K Cement Corporation. The dispute involves amounts claimed as refunds by the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order directing the stay of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent is to be admitted to hearing, considering the pendency of a related matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011) and a Supreme Court order in a similar Special Leave Petition. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010 to support the issuance of an interim order in favour of the revenue. They argued that the issue in the present appeal is similar to one being considered in LPAOW No. 123/2011. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage. However, the operative directions suggest the respondent is seeking a refund.