2025 (9) TMI 62 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal nonmaintainable where impugned order by Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under s.107 CGST Act, 2017; s.35B limits jurisdiction

M/s Grand Prix Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Faridabad

M/s Grand Prix Engineering Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise, Faridabad - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether this Tribunal (CESTAT) has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 dismissing a claim for interest on a refund originally claimed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Whether an appeal against an order passed under Section 107 CGST can be entertained under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (i.e., whether the statutory appeal route under the Central Excise Act permits CESTAT jurisdiction when the impugned appellate order is by an Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under the CGST Act). 3. The relevance and applicability of the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the appellant (holding that certain refund orders passed under GST provisions relating to pre-GST liabilities are appealable before CESTAT) to the present controversy. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear appeal against order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 CGST Legal framework: Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 confers appellate jurisdiction upon Commissioner (Appeals)/Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under the CGST appellate structure. Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes matters appealable to this Tribunal (CESTAT) and limits its jurisdiction to appeals against orders of Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Central Excise (as adjudicating authority) or orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. Precedent Treatment: The appellant relied on a Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal which held that an order passed under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act concerning refund of pre-GST service tax was appealable before CESTAT. That decision was invoked to support CESTAT jurisdiction in cases involving refund of erstwhile Central Excise/Service Tax liabilities determined in the GST regime. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme and observed that the impugned order was explicitly passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction under the Central Excise Act is circumscribed by the language of Section 35B: appeals lie only from orders of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner as adjudicating authority or from orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Excise Act (Section 35A). An order rendered by an Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under the CGST Act does not fall within the categories enumerated in Section 35B. The Tribunal therefore treated the statutory text as decisive and found that the institutional and statutory profiles of the appellate authorities under the CGST Act are distinct from those contemplated by the Central Excise Act's appellate provision for CESTAT jurisdiction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Tribunal's operative conclusion is that CESTAT lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by an Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 CGST because Section 35B Central Excise Act limits appeals to orders specified therein, and an Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under CGST is not one such specified authority. Obiter - incidental factual matters (such as the practical difficulty in filing a refund physically versus online) are not relied upon for the jurisdictional conclusion. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal against the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) order under Section 107 CGST and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal at the preliminary stage as non-maintainable. Issue 2 - Whether the Central Excise statutory appeal provision (Section 35B) permits challenges to CGST appellate orders and the effect on refund/interest claims arising under pre-GST statutes Legal framework: Section 35B of the Central Excise Act prescribes CESTAT jurisdiction and identifies the specific orders appealable to it; Section 11B/11BB of the Central Excise Act regulate refunds and interest on refunds under the pre-GST regime; Section 54 CGST provides for refund under the CGST Act and Section 107 CGST deals with appeals under the CGST appellate hierarchy. Precedent Treatment: The appellant relied on the Larger Bench decision (Bosch LB) to argue that certain refund-related orders under CGST (concerning pre-GST liabilities) are appealable before CESTAT. The Tribunal acknowledged the precedent but did not extend it to confer jurisdiction in the present factual matrix where the impugned order is an appeal order rendered by an Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 CGST. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the present situation on statutory grounds: regardless of the origin of the underlying liability (Central Excise Act), the appellate order impugned was rendered under the CGST appellate provision by an officer whose orders are not specified as appealable to CESTAT under Section 35B Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized the primacy of the statutory appeal-matrix over the subject-matter origin of the refund claim. Consequently, the fact that the refund related to central excise duty or that interest was claimed under Section 11BB did not, in the Tribunal's view, override the clear limits set out in Section 35B regarding which authorities' orders are appealable to CESTAT. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A pre-GST revenue claim or reference to pre-GST statutes does not automatically confer CESTAT jurisdiction where the impugned appellate order is that of an Additional Commissioner (Appeals) under the CGST Act, because Section 35B prescribes the specific authorities whose orders are appealable. Obiter - commentary on administrative difficulties in online filing and the steps taken by the appellant are peripheral and do not affect the jurisdictional determination. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it under Section 35B Central Excise Act and rejected the appellant's reliance on the Larger Bench decision for the purpose of altering the statutory scope of appeal; the appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Issue 3 - Effect of procedural facts (mode of filing refund; classification under CGST Section 54) on jurisdictional question Legal framework and reasoning: The factual sequence (initial refusal to accept physical refund application, online filing under CGST Section 54 category, sanction of refund without interest under the Central Excise Act provisions, followed by departmental appellate process under CGST) was considered but found not to alter the statutory appeal route. The Tribunal treated such procedural difficulties as insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the statutory provision governing appeals (Section 35B Central Excise Act) does not encompass the particular CGST appellate authority whose order is impugned. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - factual procedural hurdles and the specific route chosen by the appellant to secure refund were noted but do not form the legal basis of the decision. Conclusions: Procedural facts surrounding filing and classification of refund do not overcome the statutory limitation on CESTAT jurisdiction; the appeal remains non-maintainable.