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 as to why the appeal should not be admitted for hearing. Regarding the stay of the impugned judgment, the Court directed that the operation of the judgment would be stayed subject to two conditions. Firstly, the appellant (revenue) must release 50% of the amount due in terms of the CESTAT's judgment dated August 29, 2018, to the respondent entrepreneur. Secondly, upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent shall be stayed. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on February 20, 2019, along with connected matters. The ratio decidendi is that interim relief in tax matters, particularly concerning refunds, can be granted upon partial compliance by the revenue and furnishing of security for the balance amount, especially when the issue is sub-judice in higher appellate forums.

Facts

The petitioner, Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed a judgment dated August 29, 2018, in appeal numbers E/54723/2014 to E/54729/2014, concerning Insecticides India Ltd. The revenue sought to stay the operation of this impugned judgment. The High Court noted that the issue was subject to consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and that an interim order had previously been issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The court also dispensed with the requirement of a certified copy of the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise against the CESTAT's judgment dated August 29, 2018, should be admitted for hearing, considering its pendency alongside LPAOW No. 123/2011. (Question of law) 2. Whether the operation of the CESTAT's judgment should be stayed pending the final disposal of the appeal. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, sought to have the appeal admitted for hearing and to obtain a stay on the impugned CESTAT judgment. They relied on the fact that the issue was pending in another appeal (LPAOW No. 123/2011) and a previous interim order in their favour based on a Supreme Court decision. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondent (Insecticides India Ltd.) regarding the admission of the appeal or the stay application.