Refund order under Section 142(3) and the first appellate order passed by applying Section 11B of the Central Excise Act — appeal maintainable before CESTAT and not GSTAT Revenue’s appeal before GSTAT held not maintainable{ Asish Kumar Pati v. Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Ltd. [2026] 189 taxmann.com 220 (GSTAT – Thane)}
Facts:
- The dispute concerned a refund arising from the pre-GST/excise regime.
- After GST came into force, the refund was dealt with under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act.
- The refund order, as well as the order passed in first appeal, applied the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- The Revenue subsequently filed an appeal before the GSTAT, questioning the refund order.
Issue:
Whether an appeal against such refund order could be filed before the GSTAT, or whether the appropriate appellate forum was the CESTAT, since the refund had been decided by applying Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Held:
The GSTAT held that the appeal was not maintainable before the GSTAT. Since the refund had been adjudicated by applying Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the appellate remedy lay before the CESTAT, and not the GSTAT.
