CUSAA/132/2026 of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT AND GENERAL), NEW DELHI Vs NEW KAILASH JEWELLERY HOUSE on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

%

03.11.2026

1. These appeals are filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962

against the order dated 06.10.2025 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) New Delhi (hereinafter ‘CESTAT’). These appeals are being dealt with by this common order as the issue involved is similar.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that the appeals are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 13.04.2007 was a composite order for all the noticees and therefore the cumulative monetary effect of the OIO should be considered rather than the amount involved in each appeal.

4. The contention now raised by the Department was dealt by the Central Board of Excise and Customs by issuing instructions dated 26.12.2014 which is reproduced below:

5. The instructions dated 17.12.2015 enhanced the monetary limits of the instructions dated 17.08.2011 and added one more exceptions in paragraph 3 relating to classification and refund issues of a legal and/ or recurring nature. The relevant portion of the instructions dated 17.12.2015 are quoted below: S. No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit

1. CESTAT Rs. 10,00,000/-

2. HIGH COURTS Rs. 15,00,000/-

3. SUPREME COURTS Rs. 25,00,000/-

6. The instructions dated 02.11.2023 are reproduced below:

7. By the instructions dated 02.11.2023, the monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court was fixed as Rs.1 Crore and the earlier three exceptions were retained. The first the validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge, second where Notification/ Instruction/ Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires and thirdly regarding classification and refund issues which are of legal and/ or recurring nature.

8. The issue dealt by the instructions dated 26.12.2014 was whether the monetary limit would apply where the adjudicating authority disposes of the case by a common order involving more than one party, which is sought to be challenged by the Department. It was clarified that in cases involving a composite order where the Department contemplates filing appeal, each appeal in itself shall be a separate case subject to threshold limit.

9. This leaves no scope for the Department to re-agitate the issue contrary to the instructions and contend that the cumulative demand created by the OIO should be considered instead of the amount involved in each appeal.

10. The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable keeping essential questions of law open. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J SHAIL JAIN, J NOVEMBER 3, 2026/kp