CESTAT Dismisses Service Tax Appeal Against Angel Broking on Ground of Low Tax Effect
Pranav B Prem
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a Service Tax appeal filed by the Revenue against Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low monetary value involved, in view of the litigation policy issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The Division Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) noted that CBIC, in exercise of powers under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944—made applicable to Service Tax matters through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994—has been issuing instructions from time to time with the objective of reducing avoidable government litigation.
The Bench referred to the latest CBIC Instruction dated 6 August 2024, under which the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the Tribunal has been enhanced to ₹60 lakh. Appeals involving tax demands below this threshold are not to be filed before CESTAT, unless the case falls within specified exceptions.
The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal dated 29 December 2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai. By the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the adjudication order dated 10 August 2020 and granted relief to Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the Revenue approached the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the total Service Tax demand involved in the dispute was ₹50 lakh, which was clearly below the monetary threshold of ₹60 lakh prescribed under the CBIC instruction dated 6 August 2024. In view of this, the Revenue was not permitted to maintain the appeal before CESTAT.
Importantly, the Bench recorded that both the Revenue and the assessee were in agreement that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect in terms of the CBIC litigation policy. The Tribunal observed that when the disputed amount is below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptional circumstances are pointed out, the appeal cannot be entertained. Accordingly, considering the low tax effect involved and the binding nature of the CBIC instruction, the Tribunal dismissed the Service Tax appeal filed by the Revenue. The miscellaneous application filed in the matter was also disposed of.
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed a Service Tax appeal filed by the Revenue against Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low monetary value involved, in view of the litigation policy issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
The Division Bench comprising S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) noted that CBIC, in exercise of powers under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944—made applicable to Service Tax matters through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994—has been issuing instructions from time to time with the objective of reducing avoidable government litigation. The Bench referred to the latest CBIC Instruction dated 6 August 2024, under which the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the Tribunal has been enhanced to ₹60 lakh. Appeals involving tax demands below this threshold are not to be filed before CESTAT, unless the case falls within specified exceptions.
The appeal before the Tribunal arose from an Order-in-Appeal dated 29 December 2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai. By the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the adjudication order dated 10 August 2020 and granted relief to Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the Revenue approached the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the total Service Tax demand involved in the dispute was ₹50 lakh, which was clearly below the monetary threshold of ₹60 lakh prescribed under the CBIC instruction dated 6 August 2024. In view of this, the Revenue was not permitted to maintain the appeal before CESTAT.
Importantly, the Bench recorded that both the Revenue and the assessee were in agreement that the appeal was liable to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect in terms of the CBIC litigation policy. The Tribunal observed that when the disputed amount is below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptional circumstances are pointed out, the appeal cannot be entertained. Accordingly, considering the low tax effect involved and the binding nature of the CBIC instruction, the Tribunal dismissed the Service Tax appeal filed by the Revenue. The miscellaneous application filed in the matter was also disposed of.
Cause Title: Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Mumbai East Versus Angel Broking P. Ltd.
Case No.: Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No. 86370 of 2025
Coram: S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member), M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member)
