Binding monetary-limit instructions bar departmental appeals, and connected cross-objections cannot survive without a valid appeal.

A binding CBDT monetary-limit instruction governed departmental appeals before the Tribunal, and the later instruction superseded the earlier one. Because the tax effect in each appeal was below the prescribed threshold, the revenue appeals were treated as not maintainable and dismissed in limine. Cross-objections were also held not maintainable because they are ancillary to a valid appeal and cannot survive once the underlying appeal is incompetent. The note therefore states the operative principle that departmental appeals filed contrary to a binding monetary-limit instruction are barred, and any connected cross-objections fail with them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether departmental appeals below the prescribed monetary limit were barred by the binding CBDT instruction and were liable to be dismissed in limine. (ii) Whether cross-objections could be entertained when the revenue appeals themselves were not maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether departmental appeals below the prescribed monetary limit were barred by the binding CBDT instruction and were liable to be dismissed in limine.

Analysis: The monetary limit prescribed by the later CBDT instruction governed filing of departmental appeals before the Tribunal. The earlier instruction relied upon by the Revenue stood superseded. Since the tax effect in each appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were contrary to the binding instruction and were not maintainable.

Conclusion: The revenue appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed in limine.

Issue (ii): Whether cross-objections could be entertained when the revenue appeals themselves were not maintainable.

Analysis: Cross-objections are ancillary to a validly filed appeal. Once the revenue appeals were found to be unadmissible, there was no valid appeal on which the cross-objections could survive.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were also not maintainable and were dismissed as unadmitted.

Final Conclusion: The binding monetary-limit instruction governed the department's right to appeal, resulting in dismissal of the revenue appeals and the connected cross-objections.

Ratio Decidendi: Departmental appeals filed in contravention of a binding monetary-limit instruction are not maintainable, and cross-objections cannot survive in the absence of a valid appeal.

---