No Bench of the Tribunal to hear Stay Petition – Department wants to Collect – Do fill Up the Vacancy in the Tribunal
WHEN it comes to collection of dues (duly or unduly adjudicated), the Central Excise Department wants to use all its might against the unfortunate assessee.
Look at a classic case:
A Commissioner adjudicated a case demanding about two Crores of rupees. The assessee went in appeal to the Tribunal with a stay application. The case was posted in the Tribunal on two days and on both the days, it had to be adjourned as there was no sitting of the bench. So the case could not be heard by the Tribunal – but the department is not concerned with this – they want their pound of flesh. When a stay application is pending in a higher forum, the Department should not take any coercive action to recover the adjudicated amount, but usually the Department is not bothered about such niceties and very often they threaten the assessees with coercive action. The hapless assessee had to approach the High Court. In the High Court, the Department's Counsel argued that since 6 month's time has already expired from the date of filing the stay application, as per the Act, the Department is at liberty to proceed further. However, he fairly conceded that there was no regular sitting of the Bench in the Tribunal and it is also not disputed that the stay petition filed by the petitioner in the appeal filed as against the order dated 23.11.2010 has not been taken up only on account of the same.
The High Court observed that when the petitioner has taken the required steps in time and when the stay application has not been taken up by the Appellate Tribunal for no fault of the petitioner and when the said application is still pending before the Tribunal, the authorities, at this stage, need not take any coercive steps.
It was brought to the notice of the Court that not only in this case, but also in other matters, there is no regular sitting of the Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, according to the counsel, number of matters, as on date, is pending and only in the event of the vacancy of Judicial Member of the Tribunal being filled up, the pending cases can be taken up and disposed of.
The High Court directed the Department's Counsel to take steps to bring to the notice of the authority concerned, the existing vacancy, with a request to fill up the same. This order was delivered by the High Court on September 29 and the position remains the same even today. The problem has only worsened with the retirement of Vice-President Jyoti Balasundaram.
It may be understandable that the Government has difficulties in appointing Members, but is the assessee responsible for this? Why should the Central Excise Department overact to collect dues when the matter is pending in the Tribunal and the department is well aware of the situation in the Tribunal? By taking coercive action and closing down factories, what do they get? They will lose even the revenue that they are getting and workers may become unemployed. Of course, there is one beneficiary in this – the lawyer!
We bring you the High Court order today. Please see Breaking News