Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Commissioner Central GST And Central Excise Jammu

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Shanker Lal Gupta, to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. The Court also granted an interim order directing that the impugned judgment dated May 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in various appeal numbers, be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay is conditional upon the appellant (Revenue) releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur, and thereafter furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage, but rather focused on procedural aspects and interim relief.

Facts

This judgment concerns two connected matters: MCC No. 355/2018 and CEA No. 88/2018. In MCC No. 355/2018, an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order was allowed. In CEA No. 88/2018, the petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, is appealing against 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 favour based on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The High Court issued notice to the respondent, Shanker Lal Gupta, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. The court also directed that the impugned judgment dated May 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) be stayed with regard to 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 appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Revenue) against the respondent, Shanker Lal Gupta, should be admitted for hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a previous interim order in favour of the revenue. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner relies on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, which led to an interim order in their favour. The issue is stated to be under consideration in a connected matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011). Respondent's Contention: No specific contentions are recorded for the respondent in this excerpt. The court issued notice to the respondent to show cause.