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

Held

The Court allowed MCC No. 82/2019, dispensing with the requirement of a certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding CEA No. 71/2019, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing, listing it for April 10, 2019, along with connected matters. The Court further 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 is conditional upon the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur and furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court did not decide on the admission of the appeal or the merits of the refund claim at this stage.

Facts

This matter involves two connected cases before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu. MCC No. 82/2019 concerns an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. CEA No. 71/2019 is an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against Shiva Industries, Kathua. The issue in this appeal is stated to be under consideration in 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 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 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 (CEA No. 71/2019) should be admitted to hearing, considering it raises issues subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) argued that the issue is pending consideration in another matter and sought admission of the appeal. Respondent (Shiva Industries) did not record arguments at this stage, as the Court issued notice to show cause. 2. Whether the operation of the CESTAT judgment dated August 31, 2018, should be stayed pending the final disposal of the appeal. Petitioner/Appellant sought a stay on the remaining amount claimed as refunded. Respondent/Revenue did not present arguments on the stay application at this stage.