Jurisdiction over IGST tariff interpretation in customs appeals referred to a Larger Bench before merits review.

A CESTAT order examined whether it had jurisdiction to decide an appeal arising from a customs adjudication order where the dispute turned on interpretation of IGST schedule entries and tariff classification, and whether such matters belonged within the GST appellate framework. Noting conflicting authorities on the Tribunal's competence under the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, IGST Act and CGST appellate scheme, the Bench referred the jurisdictional issue to the Hon'ble President for a Larger Bench. It also referred the question whether a challenge to jurisdiction may be raised at the appellate stage despite not being raised before the adjudicating authority. The substantive tax dispute was not examined pending those preliminary rulings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdictional objection concerning CESTAT's power to decide matters involving interpretation of the IGST schedules and tariff should be referred to a Larger Bench before examining the merits; (ii) Whether a challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction can be raised at the appellate stage even if not contested before the lower authority.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdictional objection concerning CESTAT's power to decide matters involving interpretation of the IGST schedules and tariff should be referred to a Larger Bench before examining the merits.

Analysis: The dispute centred on whether an appeal arising from a customs adjudication order, but involving the rate and classification under the IGST rate notification, fell within the Tribunal's competence or required decision by the GST appellate framework. The order examined the interaction between the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act, the IGST Act, and the CGST appellate scheme, and noted conflicting decisions on whether CESTAT can decide issues turning on interpretation of IGST schedules and tariff entries.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional question was referred to the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench.

Issue (ii): Whether a challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction can be raised at the appellate stage even if not contested before the lower authority.

Analysis: The order considered the appellant's and the Revenue's competing positions on whether failure to contest jurisdiction before the adjudicating authority precluded a later objection before the Tribunal. In view of the conflicting authorities cited and the significance of the point, the Bench considered it appropriate that the issue be authoritatively settled before the merits were taken up.

Conclusion: This question was also referred to the Larger Bench for determination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not decided on the substantive tax demand and was instead carried to the Larger Bench on the preliminary jurisdictional questions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal faces a significant conflict on whether it has jurisdiction to decide an appeal involving interpretation of IGST schedule entries arising from a customs adjudication order, the proper course is to seek determination by a Larger Bench before adjudicating the merits.

---