Monetary limit instructions bar Revenue appeals where only penalty is disputed and the amount stays below the CESTAT threshold.

Customs-law monetary-limit instructions issued under the National Litigation Policy were treated as binding on the Department, and maintainability had to be tested by the duty, tax or penalty actually in dispute. Where the dispute concerned penalty alone, the penalty amount was the relevant benchmark, and the specified exceptions were held to be exhaustive. Arguments based on absence of cross objections, procedural bar, market value, seizure value, or absolute confiscation were rejected. On the facts, the appeal involved only a penalty below the CESTAT threshold, so the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and had to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed under the Board's instructions issued in furtherance of the National Litigation Policy.

Analysis: The monetary-limit instructions issued under the Customs law were held to be binding on the Department. For determining maintainability, the decisive factor is the duty or tax under dispute, and where the dispute concerns penalty alone, the quantum of penalty is the relevant benchmark. The exception clauses in the instructions were treated as exhaustive, and no further exception was read in for cases involving absolute confiscation. The objections based on absence of cross objections, alleged procedural bar, and the attempt to rely on market value or seizure value for crossing the threshold were rejected. The appeal involved only a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs, which was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for CESTAT.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

---