https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793382 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. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:09:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793382 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793382