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 to show cause as to why the appeal (CEA No. 61/2019) should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, 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 CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Secondly, upon 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 admission of the appeal itself at this stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No. 61/2019) against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated September 4, 2018, concerning appeals E/52523/2014 to E/52529/2014. The respondent is J&K Cement Corporation, Kathua. The CESTAT's order was in favour of the respondent, directing a refund. The petitioner sought to stay the operation of the impugned judgment regarding the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. The High Court noted that the issue was subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and that an interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue in a related Supreme Court matter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue (CEA No. 61/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering its subject matter is under consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a Supreme Court order in a related matter. 2. Whether the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated September 4, 2018, directing a refund to the respondent, should be stayed with respect to the remaining amount claimed by the respondent. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relied on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in a matter before the Supreme Court (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010) and submitted that the issue is pending consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The petitioner sought a stay on the refund of the remaining amount. Revenue's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent (J&K Cement Corporation) in the provided text.