TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1098
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ropriate directions. 2. Relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, on 08.10.2018, conducted a search of the Respondent's residence and a farm stated to belong to his spouse, which culminated in seizure of alleged exotic birds and animals on the stated reasonable belief that they were smuggled. Cash and bank balances alleged to be sales proceeds of smuggling and two vehicles stated to have been used for the alleged business of purchase and sale of the smuggled exotic birds/animals, were also seized. The seized birds and animals were handed over to Dr. P.A. Kalaignan, Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur, Chennai for safe custody and transportation to the said zoological park, for further upkeep and maintenance of the said seized birds and animals. After due process of law, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide an Order in Original dated 10.12.2019, ordered absolute confiscation of the seized birds and animals, confiscation of the cash and bank balances and confiscation of the seized vehicles without an option to pay redemption fine and release the said vehicles. The Adjudicating Authority, inter-alia, imposed a penalty of Rs. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant could be agitated only through such a memorandum which needs to be registered and numbered as per Rule 15 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules d) The miscellaneous application No.C/Misc/40032/2026 filed by the Respondent and listed for hearing alongwith the main appeal does not raise any ground of lack of monetary jurisdiction and only prays for compensation for the loss of exotic birds and damages for the notational losses suffered. e) In the absence of any formal plea/objection for agitating the issue of lack of jurisdiction by citing the CBIC Circular on monetary grounds for appeal, such a plea is dehors the record and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. f) Notwithstanding the above, the impugned case does not fall in the exclusion clauses for monetary limits, as prescribed by CBIC in Instruction f.No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023. The said instruction lists only specific cases which involve liability/leviability of tax/duty, Redemption Fine and penalty. There is no case directing exemption from filing appeal envisaged in the said instruction where goods have been confiscated absolutely. g) That when goods are absolutely co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011, it was contended that where the imposition of penalty is the subject matter of dispute and the said penalty exceeds the limit prescribed, then the matter could be litigated further. It was argued that in the present case the total quantum of penalty imposed is Rs.30 lakhs which is less than the monetary limit for filing of the Appeal before CESTAT. Such being the case, the appeal is summarily liable to be set aside for want of monetary jurisdiction. 8. Ld. Counsel emphasized that as per the above circular, in cases involving only penalty, the quantum of penalty alone shall be the determinative factor for computing the monetary threshold. It was argued that while carving exceptions, the Circular does not carve out any specific exception in respect to the confiscation proceedings. 9. It was further contended that the question of whether or not the appeal is within the monetary limits prescribed, being a question of maintainability, the same can be raised at any stage prior to passing of orders. It was pointed out that in the present case, the Respondent has raised such a question at the first available instance, in its Misc. Application No.40906/2025 dated 16.09.2025. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision its clear that it pertained to absolute confiscation of gold, a notified good covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act, where the burden of proof lies on the person from whom the goods are seized. However, the present case pertains to confiscation of birds, animals, vehicles, cash and bank accounts which are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, and hence the said case being distinguishable on facts is not applicable and does not aid the case of the Department. Furthermore, the said decision has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Manipur High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Shillong v. Shri. R.K. Swami Singh And (vice versa) And The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong v. Shri. R.K. Swami Singh, (2025) (9) TMI 1550- MANIPUR HIGH COURT. e) In the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Preventive, Kolkata v. Shri. Anil Kumar Soni and Shri. Anil Kumar Gaur, 2026 (4) TMI 85- Calcutta High Court, it was a case of town seizure of goods which are specifically covered under section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the issue of confiscation pertaining to such a seizure involved a substantial and recurring questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Balaji Overseas, it is submitted that the Appeal merits to be dismissed as below the monetary limit in terms of the National Litigation Policy. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the case laws submitted as well as the material available on record. 14. The sole issue at the threshold that arises for our consideration is that of the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the Revenue, given the monetary limits prescribed as per the prevailing instructions for preferring an appeal before this Tribunal. 15. The Ld. A.R. has in the written submissions, at the outset, raised a contention that the Respondent had taken a plea, based on their unnumbered reply/objections filed on 15.12.2025, that the Department's appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine due to lack of monetary jurisdiction. It is also the contention of the Ld. A.R. that in the absence of any formal plea/objection for agitating the issue of lack of jurisdiction by citing the CBIC Circular on monetary grounds for appeal, such a plea is dehors the record and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 16. The above submissions are stated only to be rejected. While no doubt, the Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tentions of the Revenue on these counts as noted above, are rejected. 18. Further, the contention that there exists a statutory requirement under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act for filing a memorandum of cross objections, which entails a time limitation and that any objection to any of the grounds raised in the appeal by the appellant could be agitated only through such a memorandum, is fallacious for reasons stated hereinafter. Section 129D(4) merely states that provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 129A is attracted as specified therein. It is Section 129A (4) that stipulates a time limit for the party against whom the appeal has been preferred, notwithstanding that the said party may not have appealed against such order or any part thereof, to file a memorandum of cross objections against any part of the order appealed against, if he chooses so to do. That is to say, once an order has been passed substantially in favour of an assessee, and the assessee, even if aggrieved by any part of the order has chosen not to appeal against that part; then, as per Section 129A (4), as soon as the assessee gets a notice that an appeal has been preferred by the Revenue who is aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds raised by the Revenue in its appeal. Such a presumption canvassed, is therefore liable to be rejected. However, the material on record reflect that the reply to the Appeal was filed by the Respondent in Court on 16.12.2025, and the request of the Ld. A.R. for time of one month to file his counter on the reply was also acceded to, and the matter then adjourned to 20.01.2026. Therefore, given that it is a settled position in law that procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice, (Sambhaji & Ors v. Gangabai & Ors, 2009-TIOL-79-SC-MISC refers), ex-facie, there appears to be no impediment to consider the reply filed by the Respondent along with the contentions raised by the Appellant, at the appropriate juncture, if at all it becomes necessary. In any event, as noticed above, since the Respondent had already canvassed the plea regarding the appeal being not maintainable on grounds of monetary limits in the miscellaneous applications filed earlier; the objections regarding the reply to the Appeal filed by the Respondent in Court on 16.12.2025, need not detain us while deciding the threshold issue at hand, namely, the issue of maintainab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as to reduce litigations arising out of indirect tax litigations. 4. In respect of appeals filed in the Supreme Court, the proposals are examined by the Board before filing. The Civil Appeals on matters relating to valuation and classification are filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Such appeals are being filed after careful scrutiny by the Board and while examining, the amount involved is kept in mind. On all issues other than those relating to valuation and classification, SLPs are filed by the Board after obtaining the opinion of the Ld. Law officer from the Ministry of Law. However, it may be mentioned that Board had issued Instruction vide DO F. No. 390/170/92-JC dated 13-1-93 as modified by D.O. of even number dated 27-10- 1993 advising the field formations that appeals should not be filed in the Supreme Court in cases where the duty involved is Rs. 5 Lakhs or less. The said instruction was issued in the light of observation of the Supreme Court as conveyed by the then Ld. Attorney General and was reiterated vide various Circulars issued by the Board from time to time. It is, therefore, desired th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. For ascertaining whether a matter would be covered within or without the aforementioned limits, the determinative element would be duty/tax under dispute. To illustrate it further in a case involving duty of Rs. 5 lakhs or below with equal penalty and interest, as the case may be, no appeal shall be filed in the Tribunal. Similarly, no appeal shall be filed in the High Courts if the duty involved does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs with or without penalty and interest. Further, the Commissionerate's shall not send proposal to the Board for filing Civil Appeal or Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in a case involving duty up to Rs. 25 lakhs, whether with penalty and interest or otherwise. However, where the imposition of penalty is the subject matter of dispute and the said penalty exceeds the limit prescribed, then the matter could be litigated further. Similarly, where the subject matter of dispute is the demand of interest and the amount of interest exceeds the prescribed limit, then the matter may require further litigation. 3. Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved : (a) Where the constituti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nging down the average pendency time in the Courts. Undeniably, when Government is the largest Litigant, it was incumbent upon the Government to shed the tag of 'Compulsive Litigant' and become an "efficient" and "responsible" litigant. Therefore, to achieve the stated aim of reducing Government Litigation, the Policy lays down, inter-alia, that in Revenue matters appeal shall not be filed if the amount involved is less than the monetary limit fixed by the Revenue Authorities. 25. We also notice from the instructions issued by the Board as reproduced above that, in so far as matters of Indirect Taxes and Customs are concerned; right from the initial instruction of 2010, through the instruction of 2011, and including the instruction of 2023, over the past thirteen years; for ascertaining whether a matter would be covered within the monetary limits prescribed in each of these instructions, below which threshold an appeal shall not be filed before the Tribunal, or the High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be, the decisive and determinative element has consistently been the duty/tax under dispute. We say so for the reason that while the instruction of 2023 has partially modifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bearing the aforesaid in mind, we now address the contention of the Appellant that the impugned case does not fall in the exclusion clauses for monetary limits, as prescribed by CBIC in Instruction f.No.390/Misc./30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023. It is contended that the said instruction lists only specific cases which involve liability/leviability of tax/duty, Redemption Fine and penalty, that there is no case directing exemption from filing appeal envisaged in the said instruction where goods have been confiscated absolutely. It was also contended that when goods are absolutely confiscated and no duty has been quantified in the order, the monetary limit for filing a departmental appeal in CESTAT is reckoned based on the Market Value of the goods (often referred to as the seizure value) and/or the Penalty imposed, whichever is relevant to the dispute and further that in cases of absolute confiscation, the "fine" is effectively the entire value of the goods (as they are not redeemable) and the market value represents the total revenue impact of the dispute which cumulatively exceed the threshold limit for filing the appeal. 29. We find that the Instructions issued by the Board over t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f reducing Government Litigation, and in consonance with the National Litigation Policy. 30. In our considered view, the present case pertains the challenge of the Revenue in this Appeal to the finding of the Appellate Authority that the Department has failed to establish the seized birds and animals have been actually smuggled and has set aside the confiscation as well as the penalty of Rs. Thirty Lakhs imposed on the Appellant. Thus the case turns on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and does not involve any issue where, (a) the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, or (b) where a Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires, or (c) Classification and refund issues which are of legal and/or recurring nature; the three exceptions that have been stated in the instructions, and which alone are situations where Revenue is required to contest the adverse judgement irrespective of the amounts involved. On the contrary, the said Appeal pertains to a dispute of the Appellate Authority setting aside a penalty of thirty lakhs that has been imposed on the Respondent, and the said amount of penalty is well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on the authorities who are administering the provisions of the IT Act." (emphasis supplied) 33. Thus, given that it is also a settled position in law that Revenue cannot argue against its own Circulars, we do not find any merits in the submissions of the Ld. A.R. as noted above, seemingly in the interstices of its silences, but effectively in its derogation and eroding the substratum of the circulars. We are also of the firm opinion that the confining of exceptions to the three categories stated in the instructions is a conscious and considered decision of the Board which reflects the clear intent of the Board that these, and these alone, would be the situations where adverse judgements can be contested. It hardly needs to be emphasized that these instructions are issued with the singular purpose of reducing Government Litigation. We are also of the considered view that such instructions issued are clearly binding on the Revenue and Revenue can't be seen advancing contentions contrary to the instructions laid down by the Board. 34. We have carefully examined the decisions cited by the appellant. In our considered opinion, these case laws differ in material aspects from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....volves challenge to the constitutional validity of an Act/Rule; where the Notification/Instruction/Order/ Circular has been held illegal; or where classification and refund issues are legal/ recurring in nature, appeal will be maintainable irrespective of the monetary limits. With respect, we are not able to agree with the decision of the Meghalaya High Court that appeal will be maintainable notwithstanding the monetary limits, if the goods under investigation is smuggled one. The 'smuggled goods' is not included in any of the three conditions laid down in Para 2 of the Instruction dated 02.11.2023 and the same is incorporated by judicial interpretation. Such a construction of statute cannot be adopted when the wordings in the relevant rules are clear. Resort to the golden rule of interpretation of statute can be resorted when the words in the rules are ambiguous and in order to achieve the object of the statute. In the case of Patheja Bros. Forgings & Stamping v. ICICI Ltd.: (2000) 6 SCC 545, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "12. We have analysed the relevant words in Section 22 and found that they are clear and unambiguous and that they provide ....