CESTAT Slams Commissioner - Commissioner thinks CESTAT Order is a Fish Tank?
AQUARIUM as we all know is a fish tank. Is this what the Commissioner thinks the Tribunal's order is?
In a Rectification application, the Commissioner submitted that the CESTAT Order sought to be reviewed is ‘per aquarium'.
Of course what the learned Commissioner meant was 'per incurium'.
The Commissioner alleged that the Division bench "headed by the President" failed to make out of any case.
The CESTAT President's command over Law and Language is remarkably superb and glimpses of that were visible in this order. A few samples:
1. We are of the considered view that Misc. application Nos.51246 and 53283 of 2014 proceed on a fundamental misconception of facts and law, catalyzed by uninformed assumptions of the relevant and settled principles of law and procedure. These applications have led to a wholly avoidable waste of valuable judicial time of this Tribunal and in fact have resulted in procrastination of hearing of the issues referred to the Larger Bench of five members. It is regrettable that the applicant - the CST, New Delhi has failed to comprehend the unambiguous and clear trajectory and purport of the order dated 09.09.2013.
2. The basis for the present applications (seeking review of the misc. applications dated 09.09.2013 and 05.05.2014) is ex-facie misconceived and proceeds on a basic incomprehension of these orders.
3. At the hearing today we are informed by ld. AR. that there is no extent procedure of vetting or approval of misc. applications filed by Revenue officers / Commissioners, in pending matters. While substantive appeals by Revenue are vetted by a Committee of Commissioners or Chief Commissioners, as the case may be, misc. applications including for review of orders could be filed by a party Commissioner, without verification or vetting either by a superior administrative authority or even by ARs who are authorized to appear in the Tribunal and presumed to have knowledge of the appropriate legal principles procedural principles prescriptions. Consequently applications as the present ones come to be filed on the basis of unfounded fears and on misconceived notions of law and facts.
4. As a result of this regressive practice, the CST, New Delhi has filed the two misc. applications seeking review of the misc. orders dated 09.09.2013 and 05.05.2014, without a basic understanding of the nature, scope and content of these orders nor a modicum of comprehension of the relevant and settled principles in the area. The problem is compounded by a vigorous and strenuous prosecution of these indefensible and fundamentally misconceived misc. applications by learned ARs, who have defended these misc. applications with more heat than light'; more dogma than logic or law; and substituting the need for subtrating a case with settled precedential authority and forensic skills, with a vigour expressed in higher decibels sans legal analyses.
5. We are therefore constrained to record our observation that interests of the State and of Revenue are inadequately served by (such) wholly deficient comprehension spelt out in executive processed and presented appeals / applications, of the applicable principles of law and procedure; and unproductively drain scarce time and resources of CESTAT. We hope and trust that administration will take due note of such litigative pathologies and usher in appropriate measures to augment the quality of Revenue representation before CESTAT.
We bring you this order today. Please see AT-DEL