DOES THE BOARD MONITOR CASES?
Yes, it does as the recent Circular No. , Dated : November 14, 2004 would show. This circular encloses a copy of the Supreme Court judgement in Sony India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi - , wherein the mandatory penalty equal to duty has been upheld by the Apex Court. The Board circular states that this is an important judgement in favour of Revenue and should be circulated and brought to the knowledge of the field formations.
TIOL carried this judgement on 14th May 2004 and ELT carried it on 24th May 2004. Exactly six months after we carried the judgement, the Board is now writing to the field to take note of the case. The Board has a judicial cell with a Joint Secretary and several under secretaries whose job it is or should be to see what happens in the judicial field and what remedial action can be taken. It is certainly difficult to monitor all the cases from the tribunal benches but it should be easy to monitor what happens in the High Courts and certainly the Supreme Court. In some countries when a revenue case reaches the apex court, all the members of the Board would be present in the Court to know what is happening.
If they cannot go the courts and if they cannot get the judgements, the least they can do is go through journals like TIOL and ELT and take action immediately. If it takes all of six months for the Board to communicate a decision, not its own decision, but a reported decision, the fate of departmental appeals in various forums can well be imagined. It is sheer luck that the government does succeed in some appeals.
The Board circular encloses a copy of the Supreme Court judgement. It is sure to be photocopied and circulated by the Chief Commissioners and Commissioners down to the Ranges. Why does the Board take so much pleasure in wasting paper? The citation -TIOL or ELT or both could have been mentioned and the field officers could have been asked to read the judgement.
In this age of instant communication, is it not pathetic that the Apex Revenue Board should be communicating a judgement that was widely publicised six months ago? All it takes is a junior officer who can be asked to go through the judgements published in TIOL and/or ELT and the field may be advised suitably. Any way in the field all those who are interested in reading judgements must have already read the particular judgement.
Unfortunately, winning cases is not as much a priority with the Board as issue of Show Cause Notices is with the field. Two days ago we carried the interesting judgement of Kores India - , which reached the Supreme Court from appeals by the department against Delhi CESTAT and by the Company against Chennai CESTAT. The Delhi bench gave the judgement on the issue for the same party six months after the order from Chennai bench. And the department was blissfully ignorant of the Chennai order while fighting it out in Delhi. The legal wing of a litigation-prone department should be strong, truly strong. The Board should be doing a little more than asking for reports.