CBEC's Appeal Policy - A Mockery of Law, Discipline and Government
THE High Court has now made the observations about the irresponsible appeals. But way back in 1989, the Board had clarified that no appeal/SLP should be filed, in cases of insignificant revenue unless a precedent was involved, and Collectors must implement the orders of Tribunal/Collectors (Appeals) unless stay was obtained .
Three years later, in F.NO.390/164/1992-JC, Dated : December 2, 1992, Board lamented, “It has been observed from a perusal of the orders passed by the CEGAT in the recent past that these instructions are not always observed and appeals are filed in routine manner, without proper examination. You are therefore requested to take up random scrutiny of cases where appeals have been filed against the orders of Collectors (Appeals). Such random scrutiny should be with a view to check the tendency to go in for frivolous appeals. Further, you are requested to undertake such random scrutiny on a regular basis in future, during your visits to and inspections of Collectorate headquarters .”
Eighteen years later - nothing has changed. Only one thing is proved. THE FIELD DOES NOT TAKE THE BOARD SERIOUSLY.
In 2004-TIOL-242-CESTAT-DEL, the CESTAT observed, It is unfortunate that appeal which is frivolous in nature is filed by the Revenue. This results in only harassment to the assessee and clogging this Tribunal which is not in the interest of the appellant also. We direct the Registry to forward a copy of this order to the Chairman of the Board who would consider giving necessary directions so that more care is taken while deciding to file appeal .
In , the Tribunal observed, “We are compelled to observe that Revenue should not have filed such a frivolous appeal which would not only go to the harassment of the assessee but would amount to wasting of time of the Tribunal ”.
The fact is that the field officers have no respect or fear for Law, Board, Courts, Constitution, Government or the Citizens who are their real masters. They are afraid of vigilance and Audit, but not the majesty of LAW. Okay one Commissioner or Chief Commissioner is too scared to accept a lower Authority's order. Will two Commissioners make any difference? Did the change in law to review orders by Committee of Commissioners or Chief Commissioners, make any change for the better?
In , the Tribunal observed, “ Before parting with the case, we may note that the provision for review of orders by a Committee of Commissioners was introduced in the Finance Act, 2005 with a view to bringing about qualitative improvement in the review process and to prevent frivolous appeals. This appeal clearly shows that, even under the Committee system, appeals are getting filed routinely and qualitative improvement is a far cry ”.