Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise,Jammu vs. Vinod Kumar Jain

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Vinod Kumar Jain, in CEA No. 89/2018, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. The Court acknowledged that the issue in this appeal is the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and referred to a previous interim order in favor of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. Furthermore, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated May 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, provided the appellant (revenue) releases 50% of the amount due to the respondent entrepreneur and furnishes solvent surety for the balance within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the appeal at this stage, focusing on procedural steps and interim relief.

Facts

This matter involves two connected cases before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu: MCC No. 356/2018 and CEA No. 89/2018. In MCC No. 356/2018, an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order was allowed. In CEA No. 89/2018, the petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, is appealing an order. The issue in this appeal is stated to be the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The revenue had previously obtained an interim order in its favor based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court issued notice to the respondent, Vinod Kumar Jain, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. An interim direction was also issued regarding the release of 50% of the amount due in terms of a judgment dated May 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, subject to furnishing solvent surety for the remaining amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No. 89/2018) should be admitted to hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a prior Supreme Court order. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, submits that the issue in the present appeal is already under consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and relies on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, which had led to an interim order in favor of the revenue. Respondent's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the respondent at this stage, as the court issued notice to show cause. The judgment does not record any argument from the respondent.