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 as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. This indicates that the Court has not yet made a final determination on the merits of the appeal. The Court also granted an interim direction, subject to specific conditions. The revenue is directed to release 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated August 31, 2018, to the respondent. Upon the respondent furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent shall be stayed. The Court has not expressly left any issue undecided, but the primary issue of admitting the appeal for hearing is pending further response from the respondent.

Facts

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against Shiva Industries, Kathua. The appeal concerns an order dated August 31, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in multiple appeal numbers (E/52530/2014 to E/52547/2014). The High Court was considering an application to dispense with the certified copy of the impugned order, which was allowed. The core of the matter is the revenue's appeal against the CESTAT's decision, which is stated to be subject to consideration in another LPAOW No. 123/2011. An interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue in that connected matter, based on a Supreme Court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's order dated August 31, 2018, should be admitted for hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a Supreme Court order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, seeks admission of the appeal for hearing. They rely on an interim order issued in favour of the revenue in LPAOW No. 123/2011, which itself was based on a Supreme Court order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. The petitioner implicitly argues that the present appeal raises substantial issues warranting a full hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent, Shiva Industries, at this stage. The court has issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted.