Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court decided to issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. Pending the admission of the appeal, the Court granted an interim order. The recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refund by the respondent (Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) was stayed, subject to two conditions. Firstly, the respondent must release 50% of the amount due to them as per the impugned judgment dated March 20, 2018, passed by the CESTAT. Secondly, the respondent must furnish 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 at this stage, but rather on the procedural aspect of admission and interim relief.

Facts

The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, J&K (Revenue) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had passed a judgment on March 20, 2018, in appeal numbers E/51330-51336 and E/56026-56031/2014-DB. The Revenue submitted that the issue in the present appeal is also under consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011. The High Court noted that an interim order was issued in favour of the Revenue in LPAOW No. 123/2011, relying on a Supreme Court order dated January 13, 2012. The Court issued notice to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted. Pending this, the Court directed that the Revenue would stay the recovery of the remaining amount claimed as refund by Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent), provided the Respondent released 50% of the amount due to them as per the CESTAT judgment and furnished a solvent surety.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue should be admitted for hearing, considering the pendency of a similar issue in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010. Arguments for the Revenue: The Revenue contended that the issue in the present appeal is subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011, and an interim order was issued in their favour in that matter based on a Supreme Court order. They sought admission of the appeal. Arguments for the Respondent: The Respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, other than their claim for refund as per the CESTAT judgment.