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

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. This indicates a preliminary inclination towards admitting the appeal, especially given the reliance on a Supreme Court order and a prior interim order in favour of the revenue. Regarding interim directions, the Court ordered that the impugned judgment dated August 31, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, would be stayed with respect to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to two conditions. Firstly, the appellant (revenue) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. Secondly, the appellant must furnish a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The issue of admitting the appeal for hearing is not finally decided but is being processed by issuing notice. The Court has not expressly left any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal (CEA No.69/2019) 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 High Court also considered MCC No. 77/2019, an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The core dispute involves an amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. The appeal is listed along with connected matters, and an interim order has been issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue is to be admitted for hearing, considering its similarity to LPAOW No.123/2011 and a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, which led to an interim order in favour of the revenue in a related matter, suggesting the appeal should be admitted. Respondent's Argument: No specific argument is recorded for the respondent regarding the admission of the appeal. 2. What interim directions should be issued pending the final disposal of the appeal, particularly concerning the amount claimed as refunded by the respondent? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner seeks a stay on the impugned judgment concerning the refunded amount. Respondent's Argument: No specific argument is recorded for the respondent regarding interim directions.