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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent, Shiva Industries, to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted. In the interim, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, would 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 subsequently furnishing a 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 itself at this stage, only on the admission and interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.68/2019) against an order dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014. The respondent is Shiva Industries, Kathua. The CESTAT order appears to have directed the release of certain amounts to the respondent. The High Court also considered MCC No. 76/2019, an application to dispense with the certified copy of an impugned order, which was allowed. The appeal CEA No.68/2019 concerns an issue that is also under consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011, where an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering the pendency of a similar issue in LPAOW No.123/2011 and a prior interim order in favour of the revenue. (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the principles of judicial precedent and interim relief). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner (revenue) seeks admission of the appeal, highlighting that the issue is sub-judice in another matter (LPAOW No.123/2011) where interim relief was granted in their favour based on a Supreme Court order. They likely argued for the necessity of a stay on the CESTAT's order pending the final decision. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that they are the entrepreneur to whom the impugned judgment directed release of funds.