Business auxiliary service and tax-effect limits blocked departmental appeals over SIM card sales.

Purchase and sale of SIM cards was treated as not constituting business auxiliary service because the issue had already been concluded against the Department in final precedent, which the Tribunal followed on the facts. The departmental appeals also failed on maintainability, since the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary threshold prescribed for pursuing departmental litigation in the High Court and no excluded question, such as vires of a provision or challenge to a notification, was involved. The impugned orders were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether purchase and sale of SIM cards constituted business auxiliary service; (ii) whether the appeals were liable to be entertained in view of the monetary limit fixed for departmental litigation.

Issue (i): Whether purchase and sale of SIM cards constituted business auxiliary service.

Analysis: The disputed issue had already been concluded against the Department in earlier decisions which had attained finality. The Tribunal had only followed those earlier decisions, and there was nothing to show that they were inapplicable on the facts of the present case.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals were liable to be entertained in view of the monetary limit fixed for departmental litigation.

Analysis: The amount involved in each appeal was below the monetary threshold fixed by the Union of India and the Central Board of Excise and Customs for filing or pursuing departmental appeals in the High Court, and no excluded question such as vires of a statutory provision or challenge to a notification arose for decision.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were left undisturbed and the departmental appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive tax issue is already covered by final precedent against the Department and the appeal also falls below the applicable monetary limit, interference in departmental appeal is unwarranted.

---