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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent in CEA No. 91/2019 to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. The Court also granted an interim stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to certain conditions. The conditions are that the appellant (revenue) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment dated May 23, 2018, and furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The application in MCC No. 357/2018 for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order was allowed. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal in CEA No. 91/2019 at this stage, but rather directed further proceedings.

Facts

This matter involves two connected cases before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. MCC No. 357/2018 pertains to an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 91/2019 is an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against Devender Kumar Jain. The revenue submits that the issue in this appeal is pending consideration in another case, LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue in this appeal, relying on a Supreme Court order. The Court issued notice to the respondent and directed that the impugned judgment dated May 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) be stayed regarding the remaining refund amount, subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal (CEA No. 91/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises issues subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a prior interim order in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court decision. Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) argued that the matter is sub-judice in another proceeding and that an interim order was previously granted in their favour. They relied on the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. Respondent (Devender Kumar Jain) did not record arguments in the judgment. The Court's action of issuing notice and directing a partial deposit suggests a need for the respondent to be heard on the merits of the appeal and the stay application.