Cadre review Confusions in the Statutes
THE Finance Act 2014 in Section 95 stipulates:
In the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act) or in Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 or in any other law for the time being in force, the reference to any authority specified in column (1) of the Table below shall be substituted by reference to the authority or authorities specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table and such consequential changes as the rules of grammar may require shall also be made:- (1 of 1944. 32 of 1994.)
TABLE
Sl. No. | (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|
1. | Chief Commissioner of Central Excise | Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise |
2. | Commissioner of Central Excise | Principal Commissioner of Central Excise |
So, wherever you find Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, you have to read it as Principal Chief Commissioner of Central Excise or Chief Commissioner of Central Excise.
Now look at this provision:
Section 35B(1B)(ii) on Committees to review the Orders of Commissioners and Commissioners(A):
Every Committee constituted under clause (i) shall consist of two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise or two Commissioners of Central Excise, as the case may be.
Substituting the authorities as per Finance Act 2014, the above sentence will read as:
Every Committee constituted under clause (i) shall consist of two Principal Chief Commissioners of Central Excise or Chief Commissioners of Central Excise or two Principal Commissioners of Central Excise or Commissioners of Central Excise, as the case may be.
As per the amended provision, the Committee can consist of:
1a. two Principal Chief Commissioners of Central Excise
1b. two Chief Commissioners of Central Excise
2a. two Principal Commissioners of Central Excise
2b. two Commissioners of Central Excise
This means that we cannot have a Committee of one Principal Chief Commissioner and one Chief Commissioner that is the Committee can have two Principal Chief Commissioners or two Chief Commissioners, but not one of each variety. Similar is the fate with the Committee of Principal Commissioners and Commissioners.
Enough fodder for confusion and litigation in the days to come.