Complicated 'Committee of Commissioners' - More Complications
AS is well known, Adjudication Orders of Commissioners are reviewed by a Committee of two Chief Commissioners and those of Commissioners(A) are reviewed by a Committee of Commissioners. Appeals are filed before the CESTAT based on the review and authorisation by these committees. Since the day these Committees came into existence there have been several disputes on the committee system itself.
With too many posts of Commissioners, Principal Commissioners, Chief Commissioners and Principal Chief Commissioners created and with too many vacancies in all the cadres, there is confusion all around.
What happens if there is difference of opinion between the two Commissioners or Chief Commissioners in the Committees? In case of the Committee of Chief Commissioners, the matter is referred to the Board and in case of the Committee of Commissioners, the matter is referred to the Chief Commissioner.
We must remember that the Chief Commissioner and Principal Chief Commissioner have the same powers; the Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner have the same powers. Some Principal Commissioners are asked to hold the post of Chief Commissioners; so a PC holding the additional post of a CC, is a Commissioner, PC, CC and PCC all rolled into one.
Let us see the complicated system with an example.
For our study, let us take the Ahmedabad Central Excise Zone, two Commissionerates and one Commissioner(Appeals) in the zone.
The Zone is headed by a Chief Commissioner, but there is no Chief Commissioner right now. So, a Principal Commissioner is holding the charge of Chief Commissioner. Mr. Kabirpanthi is the PC holding the post of Chief Commissioner.
The Ahmedabad I Commissionerate is headed by a PC. Mr. Kabirpanthi is the PC. Please note he is also the in-charge CC of the Zone under which his Commissionerate falls.
The Ahmedabad II Commissionerate is headed by a Commissioner - Mr. JA Khan is the Commissioner. There are also other Commissionerates in the zone, which are not important for our study.
There is a Commissioner (Appeals) - Mr. Uma Shanker.
Now an order passed by Mr. Uma Shankar is to be reviewed by a Committee of Mr. Kabirpanthi and Mr. JA Khan. If these two have a difference of opinion, the matter is to be referred to the Chief Commissioner. Mr. Kabirpanthi is the Chief Commissioner(in charge). So the matter has to be referred to Mr. Kabirpanthi. Ridiculous? But that is the law. Obviously, the Board did not visualise such a situation where when two Commissioners differ, the matter is referred to one of them!
Board realised this situation recently and observed,
Instances have been noticed wherein the Principal Commissioners are acting as Chief Commissioner of their respective Zones as well as the members of the Committee of the Commissioners formed for the purpose of reviewing the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) within their jurisdiction under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In such a situation, they would not be in a position to decide the matter as the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner under the said sections in case there is any difference of opinion between the members of the review committee. Ideally, the Principal Commissioners holding the charge of Chief Commissioner of their Zones should not be members of the Committee of Commissioners formed for the review of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) under the said sections. But, there may be situations where due to unavailability of Commissioners, the Principal Commissioners holding the charge of Chief Commissioner will also have to act as a member of the said review committee of the Commissioners.
By Office Order No. 220/2012 dated 23.11.2012, Board had created a First Link Officer and a Second Link Officer for each zone. For Example, for Ahmedabad Zone, the First Link Officer is the Ahmedabad Customs Chief Commissioner and the Second Link Officer is the Vadodara Central Excise Chief Commissioner.
Now, Board wants the 'link officer' system to be followed in our example. So if Mr. Kabirpanthi and Mr. JA Khan differ, the matter has to be referred to the Ahmedabad Customs Chief Commissioner and not to Mr. Kabirpanthi.
Should we have such a complicated system which is in any case a massive failure and a mockery of administration of law?
(Disclaimer: The names are only illustrative and need not necessarily be correct. They are taken from the websites of the Commissionerates.)
CBEC Office Order No. 24/2015 in F.No.390/Review/ 36 /2014-JC-Pt-I., Dated December 17, 2015