Interim stay does not bar refund appeal where conditional protection and prior precedent under Section 142(3) govern the dispute.

The Tribunal rejected a preliminary objection to continuation of a refund appeal based on a Supreme Court interim order in another matter and the pendency of a Larger Bench reference. It held that the interim protection was conditional and did not amount to a blanket stay of all similar disputes. The Tribunal also noted that cash refund of CENVAT credit under Section 142(3) had already been addressed in earlier precedent, and that the non-obstante wording of Section 142(3) and Section 142(6A) meant the absence of a similar provision in the erstwhile law did not affect the present issue. The appeal was allowed to proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preliminary objection to continuation of the appeal, based on the Supreme Court's interim order in another matter and the pendency of a reference before a Larger Bench, should be accepted.

Analysis: The objection was founded on the submission that the Supreme Court's interim protection in another case did not stay the present refund dispute, and that the reference to a Larger Bench on refund of CENVAT credit in cash under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should halt proceedings here. The Tribunal held that the interim order in the cited case was conditional and did not operate as a blanket stay in all other matters. It further noted that the issue of cash refund under Section 142(3) had already been decided in earlier precedent, and that the non-obstante language of Section 142(3) and Section 142(6A) rendered the absence of a similar provision in the erstwhile law immaterial for the present controversy.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the appeal was directed to proceed on merits.

---