RAC Meetings - Irrelevant?
THE Central Excise Department had long ago devised an effective system for redressing the grievances of the assessees and for assisting them with compliance of the laws. In each Commissionerate, a Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) was constituted, with the Collector/Commissioner as the Chairman and Members selected from various Industry groups. The RAC came into existence in 1959. Selection of members was by an elaborate process to be approved by the Board and a Member appointed to the RAC was made to feel as if he got nominated to the Rajya Sabha.
Over the years, like all other schemes of the department, started with noble intentions, RAC degenerated into a farce. Once upon a time captains of industry used to proudly attend the RAC meetings and these meetings were useful in solving many problems. In course of time, officers developed the habit of not taking decisions and learned to err on the side of revenue. They started giving all kinds of evasive and confusing replies in the meetings. In some cases even innocent queries by the assessees were used to book cases against them.
Slowly the trade realised the futility of attending RAC meetings and stated avoiding them or sending junior employees to RAC meetings. Now a days the meetings are attended by 3 assessees and thirty departmental officers and if you see the minutes of RAC meetings, you will find they all end with an expression of thanks to the Chairman (Commissioner).
Recently the Board decided that to facilitate greater participation of the representatives of the trade and industry and also to raise the quality of deliberations in the forum, the RAC should be constituted at the zonal level and the Chief Commissioner should preside over the RAC meetings. [Circular No. , Dated: September 12, 2011]
Will this really facilitate greater participation and raise the quality of deliberations ?
When the field works with constant fear of Audit and Vigilance with absolutely no fear or respect for the Board and the Judiciary, will it make any difference as to who presides over the RAC meetings?
A DDT report on two RAC meetings:
A Chief Commissioner decided to convene a combined meeting of the RACs of all his Commissionerates and wanted participation by top managers from the trade. The Commissioners persuaded the senior managers of companies to participate and also told them not to raise any inconvenient questions. The Hon'ble Chief Commissioner walked into the meeting – 45 minutes late and haughtily took his exalted seat, without even a perfunctory apology for keeping the captains of industry waiting. He gave a long speech about his activities and the need for more revenue. Then he asked the members if they had any questions. A few members spoke and said with their dynamic Commissioner at the helm of affairs, they had no problems. The meeting came to an end with a vote of thanks to the Chair from a leading member of the trade.
Another Chief Commissioner convened a similar meeting. He came on time. There was a presiding officer's elevated chair for him with the officers on one side and the assesses on the other. He refused to occupy the special chair and sat along with the assesses on the side opposite to the officers and declared, “I am with them.” He almost received a standing ovation. He grilled the Commissioners on the points raised by the trade, but the Commissioners stood their ground and everybody agreed that the culprits were the Statute and the Board, while the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners were exceptionally good people.