Passing of quality orders by Commissioners(Appeals) - CBEC Instructions
THE Revenue Secretary is concerned:
The pendency of cases with Commissioner (Appeals) was reviewed wherein it was observed that the success rate of revenue at the stage of Commissioner (Appeals) is very low. One of the major reasons for this low success rate appears to be the blatantly pro-revenue orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue Secretary has expressed his concern as such a situation leads to unnecessary and frivolous litigation before higher fora.
The CBEC instructs:
1. All Commissioner (Appeals) who are performing the role of quasi-judicial authorities need to be sensitive in discharging their duties and expected to pass judicious and quality orders which can stand scrutiny of law before the higher fora.
2. They should not pass orders in a routine manner especially when legal points involved in a case are well settled and there is a strong possibility of order passed by them getting reversed/rejected by the higher forum.
3. They need to desist from passing frivolous orders and must keep in mind that their role is not only to decide the cases pending before them expeditiously but also to ensure that the orders passed are judicious based on sound principles of law, which can stand scrutiny of the Tribunal/Courts.
The Board adds, "This would also be in tune with Govt.'s intentions reflected in the National Litigation Policy, which envisages curb on unwanted litigation."
But is this applicable only to appellate commissioners and not other adjudicating authorities?
In spite of Board's repeated instructions, the quality of adjudication in the field is ridiculously low. As even the Board notes, blatant bias in favour of Revenue has made the whole adjudication process a farce leaving assessees with absolutely no confidence that he would get justice in the hands of these officers. The Tribunal has become the first stage of hope for any reasonable adjudication and the departmental channels are treated only as unavoidable to get to the tribunal. Recently DDT came across an order passed by a ld Commissioner (Appeals), who mistook the period of dispute as 2010-13 instead of 2012-13 (normal period) and he expressed surprise as to why the lower authority let off the assessee with Rule 25 penalty instead of penalty under Sec 11AC and proceeded to record the usual suppression findings against the assessee. The assessee suppressed facts because the Commissioner (Appeals) imagined the demand to be under extended period!
CBEC Instruction in F.No.275/32/2016-CX.8A., Dated: November 01, 2016