Commissionet Of Central GST And Central Excise Jammu vs. Shiva Industries, Kathua

Held

In MCC No. 83/2019, the Court allowed the application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order, finding the reasons stated therein sufficient. For CEA No. 72/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending further consideration, the Court directed that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the CESTAT in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. This stay was made conditional upon the appellant (Petitioner) 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 in CEA No. 72/2019 at this stage.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Petitioner) filed MCC No. 83/2019 and CEA No. 72/2019 against Shiva Industries, Kathua (Respondent). MCC No. 83/2019 sought dispensation of providing a certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 72/2019 concerned an issue that was subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The Petitioner had previously obtained an interim order in their favour based on a Supreme Court order. The High Court issued notice to the Respondent in CEA No. 72/2019 and directed that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014, would be stayed regarding the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the Respondent, subject to the Petitioner releasing 50% of the amount due and furnishing solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provision of a certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 83/2019 should be dispensed with, as per the application filed by the petitioner. 2. Whether the appeal in CEA No. 72/2019, raising an issue subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011, should be admitted to hearing, considering the interim order previously granted in favour of the revenue. Petitioner's Arguments: For MCC No. 83/2019, the petitioner relied on the reasons stated in their application, supported by an affidavit, for dispensing with the certified copy. For CEA No. 72/2019, the petitioner submitted that the issue is pending consideration in another matter (LPAOW No. 123/2011) and highlighted a previous interim order in their favour based on a Supreme Court decision. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent in the provided text.