CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI Service Tax Appeal No. 86399 of 2017 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PK/ST-I/MUM/192/2016-17 dated 24.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals)-I, Mumbai.]

M/s. Uniphos International Limited ........Appellant (Formerly known as “Uniphos Agro Industries Ltd.”)

4^th Floor, Readymoney Terrace, 167, Dr. AB Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 VERSUS Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai Central ........Respondent

10^th Floor, Lotus Infotech Building, Near Parel Station, Mumbai – 400 012 APPERANCE Shri Kshitij Kasi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.B.P. Sinha, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 85020/2026 Date of Hearing: 07.01.2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 This appeal has been filed against rejection of refund order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) at the instance of the Respondent herein for an amount of ₹68,453/- sanctioned earlier by the Refund Sanctioning Authority to the Assessee.

2. Before argument is led by the parties, learned Authorised Representative Mr. Sinha raised a point that value of appeal being less than of ₹2,00,000/-, Tribunal in exercise of Section 35B(1) second proviso of the Central Excise Act, equally applicable to Service Tax matters in view of operation of Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 should refuse to admit the appeal for hearing since no special reason is cited or request is made for such hearing showing legal or factual necessity, when pendency of appeals involving high value is mounting up.

2.1 Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Kshitij Kasi, with reference to decision of this Tribunal passed in the case of Asiatic Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar-II, reported in 2006 (9) TMI 260 – CESTAT, Kolkata that has been followed subsequently in the case of Indoworth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, reported in 2012 (25) STR 98 (Tri.-Mumbai) argued that there is clear findings of this Tribunal on this issue that second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can’t be pressed into service under the Finance Act, 1994 since Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 relates to provision contained in Section 35C of the Central Excise Act and not under Section 35B of the said Act.

3. In the above noted premises, before given a finding on the applicability of such a statutory provision of Central Excise Act to the Finance Act, 1994, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the content of para 5 of the order passed in Asiatic Enterprises, cited supra that had analysed both the provisions after putting a comparative note in a tabular form on both Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, Section 35C of the Central Excise Act dealing with provisions relating to “appeals to the Appellate Tribunal” and provisions relating to “orders of the Appellate Tribunal” that is being compared with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 dealing with provisions relating to “appeals to Appellate Tribunal”. The said paragraph reads:

“5. The comparative study of the above-referred provisions of both the Acts reveal that Sub-Section (7) of Section 86 is limited in respect of exercizing power by the Appellate Tribunal in hearing the appeals and making Orders under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not in respect of admission of appeal.

The Appellate Tribunal acquires powers to hear the appeals and make Orders under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under Section 35B of the said Act. The discretion vested with the Appellate Tribunal to refuse or admit an appeal where the value of the appeal is below Rs.50,000.00/- (Rupees fifty thousand) under the second proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not available to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 or any other provision of the said Act for refusing or admitting an appeal