TIOL-DDT 66 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div align="justify">
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b><font color="#0000FF" size="3">TIOL-DDT
66</font><br>
2 3 2005<br>
Wednesday</b></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>Review by Chief Commissioners - how will it work?</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>THE</b> Finance Bill proposes to amend the Customs Act and the Central
Excise Act to provide for review of orders passed by Commissioners and Commissioners
(Appeals) by a Committee of two Chief Commissioners constituted by the Board.
Though this is a welcome step as a committee is more likely to take a more
judicious decision than a single officer, for the simple reason that responsibility
and burden are shared, the actual working of the scheme is bound to lead to
difficulties.<br>
<br>
An appeal against the order of a Commissioner (Appeals) has to be filed with
the Tribunal within three months from the date of communication of the order
to the Commissioner. {Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act}. But as per
the proposed amendment to section 35A, by clause 78 of the Finance Bill, the
Commissioner (Appeals) is not required to send a copy of his order to the
Commissioner. He should send it to the Chief Commissioner. So the Commissioner
never gets the copy of the order and he can wait till eternity to get that
order and then wait for another three months to direct a Central Excise officer
to file an appeal with the Tribunal. No, there is something wrong here. Now
the direction to file the appeal has to be given by the Committee of Chief
Commissioners and not the Commissioner. <b>I am not trying to confuse you;
I am only trying to inform the Board that somebody forgot to amend Section
35 B(3). So the situation after the Finance Bill becomes Act would be like
this.</b></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Commissioner(Appeals) passes an order;<br>
<br>
2. He is required to send a copy of his order to the Chief Commissioner (mind
you, not the Commissioner);<br>
<br>
3. The order is to be reviewed by the Committee of Chief Commissioners constituted
by the Board;<br>
<br>
4. This Committee if it finds the order bad will direct a Central Excise officer
to file an appeal to the Tribunal.<br>
<br>
5. The appeal to the Tribunal is to be made within three months from the date
of communication of the order to the Commissioner (<b>AND IT IS NEVER COMMUNICATED
TO THE COMMISSIONER</b>).</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Assuming this is a minor lapse, which will be corrected before the Bill becomes
Act, there are other real problems. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
goes to the Chief Commissioner and now the Committee constituted by the Board
has to start working. The order and the connected files have to be sent to
the two Chief Commissioners and then they have to decide whether to go in
appeal or not and then direct a Central Excise officer to file the appeal.
And the whole process has to be completed within three months! An almost impossible
situation in Government. Who will monitor as to which file is pending with
which Chief Commissioner? And what happens if the two Chief Commissioners
have a difference of opinion between them? One says, <b>file the appeal</b> and the other says, <b>NO</b>. Refer to a third Chief Commissioner? But the
law is silent on this. And the problem has to be solved within three months. <br>
<br>
The issue is much simpler in respect of orders passed by Commissioners. Here
the Committee has a whole year to confabulate, but here also what will happen
if the Chief Commissioners differ?<br>
<br>
These provisions come into force in another two and a half months and the
Board should sort out these difficulties before the provisions are enacted.
One possibility could be to have two Chief Commissioners exclusively for review
for every Commissioner in the country!<br>
<br>
<b><font color="#006633">Tax on Bank withdrawal</font></b><br>
<br>
The limit is likely to be increased to Rs. 50,000/- instead of the proposed
10,000. But the levy is sure to stay.<br>
<br>
Tariff Value on Crude Soyabean Oil is reduced - see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2005/cnt05_020.htm">Notification
No. 20/2005 Cus(NT) dated 1.3.2005</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>Until tomorrow with more of DDT </b></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a Nice Day<br>
<br>
Mail your comments to</font></b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</b> </font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>