January 29, 2026 : 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 line with the litigation policy of 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, exercising powers under Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which applies to Service Tax matters through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, has issued instructions from time to time to curb avoidable government litigation. Referring to the latest CBIC Instruction dated 6 August 2024, the Bench pointed out that the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the Tribunal has been enhanced to ₹60 lakh. Appeals involving tax demands below this limit are not to be filed before CESTAT, except in specified exceptional circumstances .
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal dated 29 December 2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, which had set aside the adjudication order dated 10 August 2020 and granted relief to Angel Broking. Challenging this decision, the Revenue approached the Tribunal.
The Tribunal recorded that the total Service Tax demand involved in the dispute was ₹50 lakh, clearly below the ₹60 lakh threshold prescribed under the CBIC instruction. On this basis, the Revenue was not permitted to maintain the appeal before CESTAT.
Significantly, the Bench noted 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 under the CBIC litigation policy. Observing that no exceptional circumstances had been pointed out, the Tribunal held that the appeal could not be entertained.
Accordingly, the Service Tax appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the miscellaneous application in the matter was also disposed of .
Cause Title: Commissioner of Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Mumbai East v. Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No. 86370 of 2025
Coram: S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member), M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member)
