Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K ,Jammu. vs. J And K Cement Corporation Kathua,J And K.

Held

In MCC No. 68/2019, the Court allowed the application, dispensing with the requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order. In CEA No. 59/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Regarding the stay, the Court directed that the impugned judgment of the CESTAT dated September 4, 2018, would be stayed concerning the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, provided that the appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) releases 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur and furnishes solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself at this stage.

Facts

This matter involves two connected cases before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu. MCC No. 68/2019 pertains to an application to dispense with the providing of a certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 59/2019 concerns an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the J&K Cement Corporation. The issue in CEA No. 59/2019 is stated to be subject to consideration in another appeal, LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in this matter, relying on a Supreme Court order. The Court issued notice to the respondent and directed that the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeals E/52523/2014 to E/52529/2014, would be stayed regarding the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the providing of a certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 68/2019 should be dispensed with. The petitioner sought this relief. 2. Whether the appeal in CEA No. 59/2019 should be admitted to hearing, given that the issue is subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The petitioner (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) sought admission of the appeal. The respondent (J&K Cement Corporation) was issued notice to show cause. 3. Whether the operation of the CESTAT's judgment dated September 4, 2018, concerning the refund claimed by the respondent, should be stayed pending further consideration. The petitioner sought a stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded.