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 (CEA No. 18/2018) should not be admitted for hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that the operation of the impugned CESTAT judgment dated March 20, 2018, would be stayed with regard to the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent, subject to the appellant (Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) releasing 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the CESTAT judgment to the respondent entrepreneur. This stay would be effective upon the appellant furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety. The Court also allowed an application for dispensing with the certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 264/2018.
Facts
The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise J&K (Revenue) filed CEA No. 18/2018 against an order dated March 20, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal No. E/51330-51336, 56026-56031/2014-DB. The CESTAT order was in favour of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent). The Revenue sought to stay the operation of the CESTAT judgment concerning the remaining amount claimed as refunded by the respondent. The High Court noted that the issue was subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and that an interim order was previously issued in favour of the revenue based on a Supreme Court order. The Court also dispensed with the certified copy of the impugned order in MCC No. 264/2018.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue (CEA No. 18/2018) should be admitted for hearing, considering it raises issues similar to LPAOW No. 123/2011 and a prior interim order was passed in favour of the Revenue. Petitioner's Arguments (Revenue): The Revenue submitted that the issue in the present case is the subject matter of consideration in LPAOW No. 123/2011 and that an interim order was previously issued in their favour by this Court, relying on a Supreme Court order. Respondent's Arguments (Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.): The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent at this stage, other than the fact that the CESTAT order was in their favour.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Serial No. 50 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU MCC No. 264/2018 c/w CEA No. 18/2018, IA No. 01/2018 Date of order: 19.11.2018
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise J&K vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
Appearance: For the petitioner/appellant (s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s)
:
MCC NO. 264/2018
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. 18/2018 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 Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 28194-28201/2010, interim order was issued in favour of revenue. Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted to hearing. In the meantime, it is directed that subject to appellant releasing 50% of the amount due to
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.