By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 18, 2015 : AGAINST an order dated July 2004 passed by the CESTAT, the CCE had filed an appeal in the year 2005 before the Bombay High Court through one Dr. T. C. Kaushik …

When the matter was heard recently, the Advocates informed the Bench thus –

+ that the system of filing of Appeals and arguing them has undergone a drastic change. Now, each Commissionerate exercises discretion and chooses to engage a Advocate from a list of Advocates, for representing them. Any such Advocate and practicing in this Court and authorised by the concerned Commissionerate to file the Appeal keeps track of the same and argues it. The vakalatnama to act, appear and plead on behalf of these Commissioners located at various places thus emanates from the said Commissionerates. Such is the procedure followed and that at several Commissioners' office, there is a legal cell headed by Assistant Commissioner level officer and either he or the staff of such cell keeps the track of the cases pertaining to that Commissionerate, in addition to the Advocate engaged by that Commissionerate.

The High Court observed –

++ We are nobody to comment on the procedure followed by the Revenue. Suffice it to state that we are kept waiting on several occasions and there is no indication as to who will argue the Appeals on behalf of the Commissioners. We are informed that some nodal officers are present in Court. However, we cannot take note of their presence. We are concerned with the Advocates, who have been engaged and authorised to argue cases.

To this observation, the Advocates appearing before the Bench informed that the Commissionerate concerned has not taken any decision as to who should replace Mr. T. C. Kaushik and thereafter argue this Appeal.

Hearing this the High Court retorted –

++ When complaints are made that old matters are not being taken up and given priority, then, firstly the Revenue/State should put its house in order. There are many old matters pending and for more than 10 years and having serious revenue implications.

++ We would expect high level officers to apply their mind so as to enable this Court to take up the old Appeals for hearing and disposal. They must take immediate steps to replace the old Advocates, else we would be constrained to dispose of them in their absence.

++ We would expect such steps to be taken within three weeks from today.

The High Court directed that a copy of the order should be sent to the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs of each Commissionerate.

(See 2015-TIOL-665-HC-MUM-CX)