Physical Control on errant assessees – Board issues instructions
Board’s initiative for the New Year to do a lot of un-necessary work by the Board as well as the army of officers in the field, just to harass a few assessees, is going great guns. Board has issued instructions on how to implement the Notifications 30 – 32/2006 CENT imposing physical control, withdrawal of monthly payment of duty, bar on cenvat credit, etc,. The instructions simply reproduce the provisions of the notifications but add that the proposals are to be sent to the Member (Central Excise) and that Chief Commissioners should give wide publicity to the generous scheme.
Just imagine the amount of unproductive work! As explained in DDT 523, this is how the blasted system works.
1. An officer gets a doubt that an assessee is an offender – normally these doubts will come during revenue drives against disobedient assessees.
2. The Commissioner is informed.
3. After satisfying that the assessee is indeed an offender, the Commissioner sends a report to the Chief Commissioner
4. The Chief Commissioner sends a recommendation to the Board on what punishment is to be given to the offender-assessee.
5. Before that the Chief Commissioner should give a hearing to the assessee, but he is not required to pass any speaking order.
6. On getting the recommendation from the Chief Commissioner, an officer authorised by the Board will issue an order specifying the punishment.
7. This mysterious officer of the Board is not required to give any Show Cause Notice, nor a speaking order.
8. Board thinks this order is final.
Now if each Commissioner recommends action against five assessees, the Board will be flooded with 500 cases. Doesn’t the Board have any better work other than issuing silly punishment orders to errant assessees, which will any way be promptly challenged in the High Courts? The Board as the Apex body should certainly have better things to do.
Let us only hope that these instructions of the Board also get the same treatment as the other ones do – scant respect.
And the height of the pre New Year day revelry is the Board instruction, says para 5 is deleted! Can you ever imagine a para being deleted from a yet to be issued circular? Obviously somebody wrote, “deleted” against para 5 of the draft circular and it merrily continued.
As we have always suggested, what the Board urgently requires is a few proof readers – revenue will come on its own!
F.No. 6 Dated : December 30, 2006