What did the PAC say?
Please have a look at TIOL-DDT 408 - 18 07 2006 in which we covered in detail the recommendations of the CAG. Over the CAG report, the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament recommended,
1. Board Circulars have no effect:
The Committee note that the amount involved in demand cases (i.e. where show cause notices have been issued) pending adjudication for a period beyond the stipulated one year was substantial. The inclusion of sub-section 11A(2A) wherein a provision was made to qualify the time limit does not seem to have acted as a deterrent in this regard. It is matter of concern for the Committee that inspite of fixation of time limit in the statute, pendency not only continued but actually rose during the years 2001-02 and 2004-05. Though the number of cases came down by nearly 32 per cent during 2005-06, the excise duty involved in the pending cases were about 82 per cent of pendency of previous year. It would be pertinent to note that fixation of time limit of adjudication was actually a consequence of the Committee's recommendation in their earlier Report on the subject. However, the Committee are perturbed that the problem of delay and pendency of adjudication cases persists nevertheless. Although, the Department have been issuing circulars and instructions to improve the situation, evidently this has not had the desired impact at the ground level. The Committee would therefore now like the Department to devise more effective and stringent administrative measures and controls-beyond routine circulars and instructions in order to ensure that adjudications are made promptly and within the stipulated period.
Further, it appears that adjudication officers are prone to postponing finalisation of demands by taking shelter under the clause 'where it is possible to do so'. The Committee find that the saving clause, inserted in order to be invoked under exceptional circumstances is being used at the slightest pretext. The Committee recommend that the usage of this clause should be minimised and be deemed as an exception rather than a rule. [Recommendation Sl.No. 2]
2. In spite of a galore of instructions and circulars issued by the Ministry/Board to adhere to the provisions and conditions enumerated in them, the Committee have found that they have not made any significant impact on the functioning of the adjudicating authorities.
In several cases, adjudication was kept pending for want of administrative action. In such a situation characterised by laxity and even inaction by the field formations, mere issuance of circulars/instructions appeared to be an action, routine in manner serving no meaningful purpose. Obviously, the circulars and instructions have not been followed up with regular monitoring by the Board. Matters were allowed to drift and substantial revenue remained blocked and uncollected. Apparently, the periodical reports and returns which the revenue field formations are required to furnish to the Board either did not reflect a true picture of the adjudication position or were simply ignored by the Board. The Committee expect that the Board, which is the apex body responsible for the performance of the field offices, would play their assigned role and streamline their methods and functioning with tangible outcomes for Revenue. [Recommendation Sl.No. 3]
3. Officers don't like high revenue cases:
On perusal of the age-wise pendency of various adjudication cases, the Committee have noted that there was a general tendency on the part of the adjudicating officers to deal with low revenue cases at the cost of keeping high revenue cases pending. As a result, pendency of high revenue cases rose significantly. The Committee also recommend that the Department should gear up their machinery for early disposal of 'high revenue' cases even by constituting specially empowered cells for timebound disposals. [Recommendation Sl.No. 4]
4. 89% of Revenue held up with Commissioners:
The analysis of demand cases pending adjudication as on 31st March, 2006 has revealed that cases involving about 89 percent of revenue were pending at the level of Commissioners, although it constituted only about 13 per cent in terms of figures. The Committee would like to be apprised about the concrete action taken in this matter. In this connection, it will not be out of place to mention that the Ministry must also ensure, that the Adjudicating officers are given a reasonably stable tenure to accomplish their targets. They should also be provided with adequate administrative/infrastructural support for this purpose. [Recommendation Sl.No. 5] [Maybe the Committee was not told that the Commissioners have an army of support staff and royal infrastructure - all that he has to do is sign on the dotted line]
5. No meaning if quasi judicial proceedings are allowed to linger on:
The Committee would like to point out that the advantages of a quasi-judicial process, wherein adjudication at the initial stages are made by departmental officers themselves, will be lost, if the process is allowed to linger on. The rationale of shorter procedures and quicker decisions inherent and expected in a quasi-judicial proceeding, specially formulated at the initial stages of the adjudicatory/appellate mechanism, will also thus be defeated, if cases are indefinitely delayed at the expense of Revenue. The Ministry should therefore either strictly enforce the statutory limits on grant of adjournments or review the limitation itself in the light of practical constraints faced by the Adjudicating officers. The Committee may be apprised about the initiative taken in this regard. [Recommendation Sl.No. 6]
6. No monitoring by Board:
The Committee are constrained to observe that various measures initiated by the Ministry/Board have not yielded the desired results as there was lack of consistent monitoring and the controls exercised were insufficient. In this regard, the Committee would like to emphasise that various wings of the Department ought to work in tandem and in close co-ordination so that redtapism and delay, which particularly come to the fore when cases are remanded back for fresh or 'de novo' adjudication, are eliminated. 'De novo' cases should henceforth be treated and monitored as a separate category of adjudication and disposed of accordingly within the stipulated time. [Recommendation Sl.No. 7]