Commissioner (A) cites Philippines Supreme Court Judgement to highlight judicial discipline
DESPITE the existence of an order on identical issue passed by the Joint Commissioner and thereafter by the CCE (A), the Assistant Commissioner, had the temerity to deliberately commit judicial indiscipline, on the specious ground that the Department has filed an Appeal before CESTAT.
The Commissioner (A) observed, “it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner has blatantly disregarded the decision of her immediate Superior Authority - Joint Commissioner and thereafter, the upholding of the said decision by the 1 st Appellate Authority i.e. the Commissioner Appeals. Decision rendered by two separate higher forums have been deliberately flouted. The propriety and wisdom of such conduct by a quasi-judicial officer has been adversely commented upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Union of India vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd - 2002-TIOL-484-SC-CX-LB."
The Commissioner (A) further observed, "the Assistant Commissioner is consciously aware, that on the same subject matter, for the same Appellant, two forums have resolved the issue by holding identical views. The mere filing of an Appeal before the next higher forum will not tantamount to a Stay on those decisions. The Assistant Commissioner, vide Para 14 of the impugned order, has construed that, mere filing of an Appeal, empowers her to entertain a different view. Such an approach will cause utter chaos and (is) detriment to the administration of justice. The correct course for her was to transfer the case to Call-Book and await the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT on the Appeal filed by the Department."
The Commissioner (A) referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of Philippines wherein it was observed,
Respondent Judge ought to know his place in the judicial ladder. Occupying as he does a court that is lower in rank than the RTC, he owes respect to the latter and is bound by the disposition or decision of said appellate court upon a petition for review of an order/orders issued by him. His act of "reversing" the final judgment of the RTC, instead of complying with his mandatory and ministerial duty of executing the same, is the height of audacity, arrogance and presumption on his part (Habaña vs. Vamenta, 33 SCRA 569; Republic vs. Angeles, 20 SCRA 608; Baclayon vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 761) for if the decision of the RTC was unacceptable to the defendants, their remedy was to appeal it to a higher court. Having failed to do that, they, as well as the lower court, were bound by the judgment. There was no avoiding compliance with it for the execution of a final judgment is a ministerial duty of the trial court. A municipal trial judge, figuratively speaking, is "the low man in the totem pole" of the judiciary. He should, of necessity, defer to orders of the higher courts regardless of his personal opinion in the case. "A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation (People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56)." (Ysasi vs. Fernandez, 26 SCRA 393, 395.) The appellate jurisdiction of a higher court would be meaningless if a lower court may disregard and disobey with impunity its final judgment or order. As we held in another case: "If each and every Court of First Instance could enjoy the privilege of overruling decisions of the Supreme Court, there would be no end to litigation, and judicial chaos would result. Appellate jurisdiction would be a farce if the Supreme Court did not have the power of preventing inferior courts from meddling with decisions when sent to them for compliance.
Judicial indiscipline is a matter of routine in the Department and you can't really blame the Assistant Commissioner - she must have picked up the trait from her Commissioner. Even senior officers in the Department have scant respect for the Tribunal, High Courts, Supreme Court or even their own Board.
For that matter even Commissioners (Appeals) with blatant impunity disobey the orders of superior authorities like Tribunal and High Court. After all in this department you never get punished for an order in favour of Revenue, however ridiculous it is! What is beyond comprehension is the reason why we waste so much of money, time and paper on this farce called departmental adjudication and appeals. I have seen lawyers spending Rs.20,000 on flight tickets (obviously charged to the client) to travel half way across the country to appear before an Additional Commissioner - just to get the Show Cause Notice confirmed - and later repeating the performance to get the OIO confirmed by the Commissioner (A)!