CBIC monetary-limit rules bind departmental appeals, with exceptions narrowly confined to specified legal challenges and disputes.

CBIC monetary-limit instructions are stated to bind departmental authorities because they implement the National Litigation Policy. For indirect tax and customs matters, the relevant threshold is the duty or tax in dispute, and later instructions are described as revising only the monetary limits while keeping the same framework and exceptions. The recognised exceptions are confined to constitutional validity challenges, claims that a notification, instruction, order or circular is illegal or ultra vires, and legal or recurring classification and refund issues. The text also states that absolute confiscation or seizure value does not create an additional implied exception, and that maintainability objections may be raised without a formal cross-objection where the point is already on record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed under the CBIC instructions issued in exercise of statutory power and whether the departmental circulars binding the Revenue barred the appeal.

Analysis: The monetary-limit instructions were held to have been issued in furtherance of the National Litigation Policy and were binding on the departmental authorities. For indirect tax and customs matters, the determinative factor for applying the threshold was the duty or tax under dispute, and the later instruction revised only the monetary limits while retaining the same basic framework and exceptions. The recognised exceptions were confined to constitutional validity challenges, declarations that a notification, instruction, order or circular was illegal or ultra vires, and legal or recurring classification and refund issues. The Tribunal rejected the contention that absolute confiscation or seizure value created an implied exception, and held that no such additional category could be read into the instruction. It also held that the absence of cross objections did not bar the Respondent from contesting maintainability, and that objections to the Revenue's appeal could be raised without a formal cross-objection where the Respondent had already taken the plea on record. Applying the prevailing instruction, the appeal concerned penalty of thirty lakhs, which was below the monetary limit prescribed for the Tribunal, and did not fall within any exception.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable and could not be entertained.

---