Commissioner (Appeals): The office needs to be institutionalised
EXCERPTS from a couple of previous DDTs.
DDT 21 30 12 2004:
THERE is unfortunately a lot of stigma attached to the post of Commissioner (Appeals). Who gets appointed as Commissioners (Appeals)? Normally one with no pulls or one who is not wanted around for often suspect reasons. Several posts of Commissioner (Appeals) are lying vacant. Why? Simply there are no takers. This is one post where you are required to work - at least sign a couple of orders a day, but has no perks attached, comparable to a territorial Commissioner. A Commissionerate can certainly run or even run better without a Commissioner but the appellate unit cannot function without a Commissioner (Appeals).
One of the reasons put forth by the Customs and Central Excise Department for creating a large number of posts of Commissioners (Appeals) was that these Commissioners would clear the pending cases and the state coffers would be overflowing with the payments made by the litigants. The good Government accepted this preposterous plea and agreed to promote a large number of officers.
But the promised queue outside banks by the relieved appellants eager to make payments consequent to appellate orders remained a mirage. Why? One reason could be there were not many appellate orders! Why? There are no Commissioners (Appeals). Why? Commissioners (Appeals) do not have half the glamour of a jurisdictional Commissioner with his retinue of staff and vehicles. The Commissioner (Appeals) is always dependent on the jurisdictional Commissioner for everything ranging from paper to protocol and no protocol officer worth his smart uniform will waste his talents on a Commissioner (Appeals); with the result there are not many takers for these posts and several of the newly created posts are lying vacant.
This first appellate authority of the department is so neglected and disrespected that many of the Commissioners show scant respect not only to the Commissioners (Appeals) but also to their orders. Unless this office is institutionalised and strengthened, the quality of justice in the department is bound to suffer and retard further.
DDT suggests that:-
1) The Commissioner (Appeals) should be de-linked from the department. Anyway several wings are going out of the Board and this is a good office that can and should go. The Commissioner (Appeals) may be placed under the CESTAT or under a Chief Commissioner (Appeals) with independent funds and functioning. Commissioners (Appeals) are often invited to meetings called for by Chief Commissioners to discuss revenue augmenting. There was a Commissioner who wrote a letter to the Chairman that a part of the credit for his good performance should go to the Commissioner (Appeals) who was consistently refusing to grant stay!
2) The Commissioner(Appeals) should hold court in an open room where advocates, consultants and others should be allowed to be present. The proceedings should be like in the Tribunal.
3) The Commissioner(Appeals) should pass his orders in open court.
4) The defending or appealing departmental officer should invariably be present in hearings before the Commissioner(Appeals) and should present his case.
5) Nobody should be posted as Commissioner(Appeals) against his will. This should be a post on selection by calling for willingness from prospective candidates. To attract good talent there should be strong incentives like better perks, an allowance equal to the salary, preference for selection to Tribunal etc,.
6) Once the Commissioner(Appeals) passes an order, he should have total administrative control over the officer against whose order the appellate order is passed. If the order is not implemented, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have power to punish the lower officer.
7) No person should be posted as Commissioner (Appeals) in a state in which he had worked in the preceding three years.
But the first and foremost step should be to fill up the vacant posts. Instead of arrears clearance drives, which only produce reports and not realisation, the department should drive for an adjudication and appeals clearance drive. To start with for every three hundred pending appeals, post a Commissioner as Commissioner (Appeals). All the Commissioners from the Commissionerates can be withdrawn for this job with an assurance that they will get their Commissionerates back after they finish passing these three hundred appellate orders. May be in six months we can liquidate the entire pendency of appeals. Adjudication is the only work of the officers, for which we can see the results - good or bad. Results of all other work are manipulated and misreported. For one year let us forget everything and concentrate on adjudication and appellate orders - at all levels.
But what will happen to revenue if the officers are busy in adjudication and not concentrating on revenue realisation, survey, reports and audits? The FM need not worry; Revenue will come in automatically and Sir, please be don't be surprised if there is a huge increase in Revenue.
DDT 1201 22 09 2009:-