Can Tribunal Impose Costs on Adjudicating Authority? - Costly Commissioners lose
OUR CESTAT did it at least twice in recent times. In the Coca Cola case - 2015-TIOL-613-CESTAT-DEL, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.25,000 on the Adjudicating Commissioner.
In Okay Glass case - , the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Commissioner who adjudicated the impugned order. The Department took the case in appeal to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court did not find any merit in the appeal or a substantial question of law and so the cost on the Commissioner remained intact.
The Coca Cola case was taken in appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana with two substantial questions of Law:
(i) Whether CESTAT is empowered to impose cost on the adjudicating authority?
(ii) Whether direction to deposit cost into the PM National Relief Fund is proper when it is not voluntary?
The Tribunal had held,
"The adjudicating authority has been highly and conspicuously nonspeaking, non-reasoned, arbitrary and cavalier while passing the impugned order. Non-application of mind (on the part of the adjudicating authority) is indeed writ bold and large across the impugned order. Such orders adversely and severely impinge upon the public's trust in the public authorities and for that reason a public authority displaying such egregiously irresponsible conduct and that too while performing quasi judicial functions deserves to be put to costs...impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the adjudicating authority who passed the impugned order payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund."
The High Court in a recent order found no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by the Court. Accordingly, no substantial question of law was found to arise in this appeal.
Interestingly the High Court did not answer the question whether the CESTAT is empowered to impose costs on the adjudicating authorities and whether the direction to deposit cost to the PM's National Relief fund is proper.
DDT had covered these issues extensively in 18.03.2014.
Please see Breaking News for the latest High Court Order.