##PAGE1##

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No. 85327 of 2026 In

Service Tax Appeal No. 87810 of 2018

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 88/GH/2017-18/Raigad dated 16.03.2018 passed by Commissioner, CGST & CX, Thane-Audit, Mumbai.)

Commissioner of Central Goods and … Appellant Service Tax, Navi Mumbai

16^th Floor, Satra Plaza, Palm Beach Road, Sector-19 D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400 705.

Versus

Udhe India P. Ltd. …. Respondent Udhe House, LBS Marg, Vikroli (West), Mumbai- 400 083.

APPEARANCE:

Shri Arun Bhaskar, Authorized Representative for the Revenue None for the Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85534/2026

Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date of Decision: 25.03.2026

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Heard both sides.

2. Applicants/Appellants have filed this miscellaneous application, praying for amendment of the cause title in the appeal filed by them. It has been stated that the respondent’s name and address in the appeal memorandum as ‘The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax-Palghar’, may be changed and to be read as “The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Nagpur-II”, having officer at P.O. Box No.81, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001 consequent to change in the jurisdiction of such adjudicating

2 ST/MISC/85327/2026 IN ST/87810/2018

authority. Prayer made by the appellants is considered and accordingly, the changed name and jurisdiction of the respondent has been incorporated in the

appeal records. Miscellaneous application is disposed of.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, CGST & CX, Thane-Audit, Mumbai, Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the original authority and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent. The amount involved in the impugned proceedings is Rs.49,21,958/-. Insofar as the monetary limit for filing of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, by deriving the powers conferred in Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to matters relating to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued the instructions, from time to time, with the objective in reduction of the Government litigation in the area of Central Excise and Service Tax. In the latest instruction issued by the CBIC from file F. No. 160390/20/2024-JC-CBEC dated 06.08.2024, the threshold monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs has been prescribed, below which the appeal

shall not be filed before the CESTAT.

4. In the case in hand, since the service tax demand confirmed in the adjudication order is below the threshold limit of Rs.60,00,000/- prescribed under the said Instruction dated 06.08.2024, Revenue is not permitted to file appeal before the Tribunal. It is confirmed that the disputed amount of service tax involved in the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit prescribed under the instruction dated 06.08.2024 issued by the CBIC. Further, though at paragraph 3 in the said instructions dated 06.08.2024, there is specific mention of agitating the matter before the Appellate Forum, irrespective of the involvement of the amount on certain issues, but the issue categorized therein are not confirming to the present appeal filed by the Revenue inasmuch as imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is the subject matter of present dispute. Hence, the appeal can be

disposed of in terms of the litigation policy formulated by the Government.

3 ST/MISC/85327/2026 IN ST/87810/2018

5. Considering the disputed amount of service tax involved in the present appeal, which is below the prescrib