Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. And Central Excise , Jammu vs. Insecticides INDIA LTD. Udhampur
Held
The Court decided to issue notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. Pending this, an interim direction was issued. The appellant (Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise) is directed to release 50% of the amount due as per the impugned CESTAT judgment dated August 29, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur. Upon 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 did not decide on the merits of the appeal at this stage, focusing on procedural steps for admission and interim relief.
Facts
This matter involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against Insecticides India Ltd. The appeal concerns an order dated August 29, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal numbers E/54723/2014 to E/54729/2014. The High Court dispensed with the requirement of providing a certified copy of the impugned order. The core of the dispute relates to a refund claimed by the respondent entrepreneur. The Court noted that the issue is subject to consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011 and referenced a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012, in a related Special Leave to Appeal. An interim order had been issued in favour of the revenue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT order dated August 29, 2018, should be admitted for hearing, considering its relation to LPAOW No.123/2011 and the Supreme Court's order in SLP (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, sought admission of the appeal. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's arguments for admission but implies reliance on the Supreme Court's stance in the cited SLP. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than their claim for refund which is the subject of the impugned CESTAT order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
MCC 63/2019
Serial No.14 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 63/2019 c/w CEA No.54/2019, IA No. 01/2019. Date of order: 06.02.2019
Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise
vs. Insecticides India Ltd. Udhampur. \
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No MCC No.63/2019:
For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, providing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No.54/2019: It is submitted that the issue raised in the present case is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No.123/2011. In this appeal placing reliance on order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue.
M
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.