Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise,Jammu vs. Shiva Industries

Held

The Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending this, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the CESTAT would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent. The furnishing of a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety would be a prerequisite for this stay. The Court did not decide on the admission of the appeal or the merits of the dispute at this stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal against an order dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The respondent is Shiva Industries. The appeal concerns a dispute over an amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. The High Court dispensed with the requirement of a certified copy of the impugned order for MCC No. 94/2019. For CEA No. 74/2019, the Court noted that the issue is subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and that an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a previous Supreme Court order. (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, which led to an interim order in favour of the revenue. They seek admission of the appeal to hearing. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent at this stage, other than their claim for the refunded amount.