MAY 15, 2015

By Suhrid Bhatnagar

TO BEGIN WITH

Legislative makes the law and leaves the execution and manner of implementation of the law on the Executive. The law made by the Legislative is called the Substantive Law whereas law relating to execution and implementation made by the Executive is called Administrative Law. Therefore, the Executive has been empowered with quasi-judicial functions. If it appears to Revenue that the assessee has acted in such a manner that results in loss of revenue, the departmental quasi-judicial authorities proceed to issue, within prescribed time-frame, a show cause notice demanding there under the revenue so not paid or short paid. Whereas the provisions for notice for recovery of such unpaid revenue, adjudication thereof and appeals resulting there from are provided in the substantive law like the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Finance Act, 1994 for service tax framed by the Legislative, and, the procedure to be followed in between is provided in the Rules made under these substantive laws or the notifications and circulars issued there under. Such rules, notifications and circulars are part of procedural law or more appropriately called the administrative law. The Judiciary comes into picture only when a question of law can be framed on the issue involved.

As far as procedure of adjudication is concerned, where we find that the law is rigid in the sense that a show cause notice is to be issued within the limitation prescribed for demanding the unpaid revenue. The law also provides that as far as possible, the case should be decided within six months or one year depending upon whether the demand is issued for the normal period or extended period. However, situations may arise where the department issues a show cause notice but is not in a position to adjudicate the case for reasons stated later in this paper. In such cases, the case is transferred to Call Book till the reason for such transfer to Call Book is removed or after such period as prescribed after necessary verification.

The Call Book has been mockingly called Department's dumping yard which means the Department dumps the cases which it does not intend to decide, or once a case is transferred to Call Book, it is not easily 'recalled' or taken out of Call Book for adjudication. In pure sense, Call Book is a place of hibernation where the unconfirmed demand (SCN) goes to take rest in bad weathers till the right season comes for it. Sometimes, Call Book is also referred to as a black hole in indirect taxes. A black hole, in Astronomy, is a region of space with very intense gravitational field. The extent of intensity does not allow any matter or radiation, or even light to escape. In informal terms, we refer to black hole as a place where money or lost items 'apparently' disappear without trace. Agreed, that this is a bit of exaggeration, but to a large extent, this is also true. This is a black hole in the sense that this is a bit less cared space in indirect taxes. The reasons are obvious. Whatever cases are entered in Call Book is not immediate pendency. These are the cases whom one of the four kinds of necessary anesthesia has been administered to. Fine till here, but the anesthetist seldom cares for the 'patient' to regain consciousness. This makes it sound like a 'black hole'. Whether or not it is a black hole depends upon the adjudicating authority; at some places the position may be explainable or even commendable, but at large, the position is more likely to be grim. The situation of Call Book is elaborated in coming paragraphs.

BACKGROUND OF CALL BOOK

While looking for the oldest available reference of Call Book, the author found that the Cabinet Secretariat (O&M Division) had been publishing Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure (known as CS-MOP or generally referred to as the OPM) since 1955. From the year 1963, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) has been bringing out the OPM. The concept of Call Book finds its roots in Para 125 of the OPM, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:

125.Call Book-

(1) If a current case has reached a stage when no action can or need be taken (e.g. cases held up in law courts) to expedite its disposal for at least 6 months, it may be transferred to the call book with the approval of an officer not below the level of Branch Officer/ Divisional Head.

(2) …….

(3) Cases transferred to call book vide sub-para (1) above, will be excluded from the monthly statement of pending cases …...

(4) …….

(5) The section officer will scrutinize the call book in the last week of every month to see that the cases which become ripe for further action during the following month are brought forward and action initiated …..

The CBEC's Manual of Office Procedure (OPM) is very rarely available and many of the officers might have just heard of it without having an opportunity to even see it. The copy of CBEC's OPM the author could find was a photocopy with many of the pages missing. Another copy which the author could lay hands on was a redrafted copy issued uploaded with sincere efforts by Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh. However, little reference to Call Book in it could not contribute to this section of the paper.

It can be expected that the CBEC's OPM may be having provisions similar to CS-MOP. This assumption is based on the fact that CBEC was constituted only in 1963 vide the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 while CS-MOP was brought out in 1955.

It is so necessary that at least one copy of CBEC's OPM is made available by CBEC in every office since it also provides many other procedures also which are carried out in office.

Therefore, the concept of Call Book is to segregate the cases where action cannot / need not be taken for at least six months from the cases on which action is going on or can be taken in very near future. The concept has worked well for administrative convenience, since the cases which are not to be 'touched' for six months or more are not shown in monthly statement of pending cases, thereby reducing pendency and showing better statistics of disposal. However, the concept also casts a responsibility of monthly review of such cases transferred to Call Book, so that any case which becomes ripe for further action does not remain unattended.

DEVELOPMENTS OF CONCEPT IN CBEC

The first available reference to Call Book for Central Excise matters appears in Board's Circular No. 5/83-CX.6 dated 10.03.1983 wherein directions were imparted to issue protective demand in consequence to an audit objection raised by CERA which has not been admitted by the Department. Such protective demands were directed to be transferred to Call Book till the settlement of objection.

For the first time, the Board's DO letter F.No. 101/2/92-CX.2 dated 04.03.1992 directed that a case should be transferred to the Call Book only with the approval of Commissioner.

However, further to the above said category of cases where CERA objections are being contested, the Board's Circular No. 162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995 stated that the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi has requested for inclusion of certain categories of cases which may be transferred to Call Book:

(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority.

(ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/ CEGAT, etc.

(iii) Cases where audit objections are contested.

(iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book.

The Circular abruptly ends with the request of the Commissioner, CCE, Delhi and does not speak of the decision taken by the Board on the aforesaid request. However, the four categories stated in the Circular became 'Brahma Vakya' for the adjudicating authorities to follow.

The above four categories were reiterated by the Board vide Circular No. 385/18/98-CX dated 30.03.1998 and Circular No. 719/35/2003-CX dated 28.05.2003. Very recently, the cases admitted in the Settlement Commission were also allowed to be transferred to Call Book by the Board vide Circular No. 992/16/2014-CX dated 26.12.2014, stating that such cases were already covered under Category "(ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/ CEGAT, etc."

THE FOUR CATEGORIES ELABORATED

In many a cases, show cause notices are issued, but it is either known beforehand or comes to notice of the Department at some stage of adjudication, that in a similar case, the Department has preferred an appeal with appropriate appellate authority. Generally, it comes into notice when the noticee contends in his reply or at the time of personal hearing that the Tribunal or High Courts have decided one or more such cases in his favour. At such stage, the department is obliged to look into the final fate of the case which the noticee claims to be in his favour i.e. whether the decision in that case has attained finality. If the case stands accepted by the Department, the balance of favour may be towards the noticee, and in case an appeal has been preferred by the Departmental counterpart, the case is transferred to Call Book.

These are the cases where the Courts / Tribunal have specifically directed that such cases are not to be decided. This may happen in the cases of subsequent demands, where noticee's appeals against earlier adjudicated cases are lying with Supreme Court/ High Court/ CEGAT, etc. and the appellate Court / Tribunal directs the adjudicating authorities not to adjudicate upon such cases. This category also works as a tool to save from multiplicity of litigation in the cases of other notices since the Department 'may' transfer such cases to Call Book under this category. Also, where an issue has all India ramifications, it may also happen that resultantly demands have been issued all across the country and transferred to Call Book. In such cases, the purpose of such injunction is to save the appellate authorities / Tribunals / Courts from repetitive litigation and also saving the costs of litigation for the Department and noticee. As mentioned above, now the cases admitted in the Settlement Commission are also allowed to be transferred to Call Book by the Board vide Circular No. 992/16/2014-CX dated 26.12.2014 under this category, since such cases cannot be taken up for adjudication pending decision by the Settlement Commission, who shall either issue a Settlement Order or revert back the case for adjudication.

This is the broadest category of Call Book cases in respect of the instructions / circulars issued by the Board. The Board had, as long back as in the year 1983, recognized the need for Call Book for transfer of protective demands issued against audit objections raised by CERA which were not admitted by the Department, and accordingly Board had issued Circular No. 5/83-CX.6 dated 10.03.1983 containing the above instructions.

The above instructions have been reiterated in Board's letter D.O.F. No. 232/127/2009-CX.7 dated 12.10.2010 while issuing instructions to streamline the quasi-judicial processes relating to matters emanating from Audit Paras of the CAG. However this letter also allows to this category the cases where the demand issued pursuant to an admitted objection appears unsustainable to the adjudicating authority during the adjudication proceedings. In such a case, the adjudication is not to be made and the Commissioner should refer the matter to the Commissioner (PAC) seeking that the para be contested. The Commissioner (PAC) shall submit the revised recommendation of the Commissionerate to the concerned Member, for a decision in the matter. If the proposal of the Commissionerate is approved, revised comments/ATN shall be sent to the C&AG. In such cases, the case shall be transferred to Call Book pending a decision by the CAG.

Thereafter, the department has come a long way and on the issue of dealing with audit objections and the demands resulting there from, many circulars / instructions have been issued and procedures have been prescribed which have been listed as annexure at the end of this paper.

However, central to all the circulars, instructions and prescribed procedures is that a demand has to be issued as soon as within 30 days of receipt of the audit objection from CERA whether the audit objection is being contested or not. Where the audit objection is contested, the demand shall be transferred to Call Book with the permission of the Commissioner.

Generally, the Board issues Circulars / Instructions to keep such demands on issues relating to excisability, classification or valuation in Call book where the Board has to take a stand in the matter.In the past, some of such cases related to:

Such issues are of all India ramifications and the Board, for the sake of uniformity of practice, directs such cases to be transferred to Call Book while the issue is under examination with the Board. Consequent upon issue of the circular, the issue comes to knowledge of all formations and they also take the protective measures to safeguard the revenue, and transfer the cases to Call Book.

In some cases, the Board may also specifically direct such cases to be kept in Call Book where the decision in the appeal / writ petition filed by the Department is awaited. Therefore, there may appear an overlap in the category "(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority" and this category. However, in such cases, the Board shall always make it clear that such cases may be transferred to Call Book in the Category (i), leaving only the cases where the Board itself examines an issue / is required to take a stand, to be transferred to Call Book under Category (iii).

When the Board has taken a stand on examination of the matter, the Board issues a circular / instruction providing the necessary clarification and instructing the adjudicating authorities to recall such cases out of Call Book and take them up for adjudication.

MAINTAINING THE CALL BOOK

Although, it is now here prescribed, every adjudicating authority should maintain the Call Book separately for Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs cases. Although the paper limits itself to Call Books maintained by adjudicating authorities; it may be mentioned here that in similar manner the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Hon'ble Tribunals may also maintain their respective Call Books separately for Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs cases.

The following revised format of the Call Book was prescribed vide D.O. F.No. 101/2/2003- CX.3 dated 10.01.2005:

a) Serial No.

b) Name & Address of Assessee

c) File No.

d) Date of transfer to call book

e) SCN No. and date.

f) Amount of duty involved

g) Issue involved

h) Reason for transfer to call book (i.e. category and details of specific case / Board's direction necessitating transfer of case under consideration to call book)

i) Date of transfer out of Call Book

j) Reason for transfer out of Call Book

k) Adjudicating Authority to whom it is transferred. (i.e. Commissioner, Additional / Joint Commissioner, Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner)

It is felt that if the Call Book is maintained separately for adjudicating authorities, the last column shall not be required.

MONITORING / REVIEW OF CALL BOOK

The Board's circulars envisage monthly review of Call Book to check for delays in taking out the cases from Call Book when the ground of transfer of case to Call Book no longer exists e.g. when a departmental appeal has been decided or injunction has been removed by the Court or a CERA objection has been settled or a stand on the ground of transfer of cases to Call Book has been taken by the Board. The Board had vide Circular No. 719/35/2003-CX., dated 28.05.2003 required a one-time comprehensive review of Call Book cases. Even earlier, vide Board's circular No. 53/90-CX.3, dated 06.09.1990 and Board's D.O. letter F.No. 101/2/92-CX.3 dated 04.03.1992 the Commissioners were required to review the cases on a monthly basis.

The Directorate General of Inspection, New Delhi vide F.No. 503/41/2005 dated 29.12.2005 noted that Call Book cases are not being regularly reviewed. It was also stressed by DGI that a review of Call Book should not be made on the basis of statistical abstract drawn in the Register since this may not detect a case wrongly transferred to Call Book. Therefore, it implied that for review of Call Book respective files should be taken up.

The Board vide F.No. 206/2/2010-CX. 6 dated 03.02.2010 issued instructions for taking out the cases relating to not admitted CERA objections from Call Book and adjudication these cases if the CERA objection is not converted to Statement of Facts or Draft Audit Para after the period of one year from the date of sending the reply to the LAR.As a word of caution it was added that it must be ensured that the LAR has not been converted into SOF/DAP. However, this letter was called 'circular' in the letter itself, although the prescribed running serial number for circulars was not allocated to this communique.

As per the minutes of All India Conference of the Chief Commissioners and Directors General of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax held on 11 & 12.08.2014, issued under F.No. 296/93/2014-CX.9 dated 17.09.2014, all the Chief Commissioners were asked to take action on the cases of Call Book looking into the possibility of realization of locked up revenue.

It is obvious that an effective monitoring and review of Call Book cases shall require co-ordination between Adjudication, Review, Audit and Legal Sections of a Commissionerate. Whereas, the Board requires these Sections to work in tandem with each other, no effective mechanism for the same is provided. A monthly review of Call Book cases is a humongous task and in the absence of effective monitoring and review mechanism, this field is most likely to be uncared for.

During the course of monitoring / review of Call Book, if it is found that the reason for which the case was transferred to Call Book no longer exists i.e a Departmental appeal has been decided or an injunction has been removed or an audit objection has been settled or a clarification has been issued by Board, the adjudicating authority may immediately take out the case from Call Book and put it into adjudication process.

The control mechanism may be better if a list of Call Book cases is also maintained issue-wise by the adjudicating authority. This will facilitate bunching of similar cases, and whenever an issue is decided in any manner, all the cases on that issue shall come out from Call Book without fail. The use of MS Excel shall be useful for capturing this data since MS Excel allows sorting facilities by more than one fields also such as reason for transfer to Call Book, Division / Range concerned and date of SCN.

Suggested monitoring / review mechanism for Call Book is given category-wise here under:

All the adjudicating authorities may easily review position of departmental appeal in courts from the website www.courtnic.nic.in or website of concerned High Court or Apex Court, in case of departmental appeals filed by other Commissionerates as well as their own Commissionerate. If the status of the case is shown as disposed, a copy of the order, if available, may be downloaded from the website or may be required from the concerned Commissionerate. While doing so, if the case has been decided in assessee's favour, it may also to be inquired as to whether further appeal has been preferred by the Commissionerate. In cases of decision of Supreme Court, the position of filing of the Review Petition may be inquired from the concerned Commissionerate / Board.

As for the cases in appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, the adjudicating authorities may send a statement, showing details of departmental appeals with concerned Commissionerate, at the beginning of every month to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and their Headquarters Review Section. It is suggested that in the statement a column for 'present status' may be made and left blank for being filled up by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) / Headquarters Review Section. Such ease and facilitation by adjudicating authorities to the office, where from they are making a query, may ensure timely reply resulting into timely review of Call Book.

Action similar to that given for Category (i) shall be required for review where the information shall be required from Commissionerate's Legal / Review Section.

As for the cases in Call Book for the reason that an audit objection is being contested, the Divisional Assistant or Deputy Commissioner should have a close watch since the CERA objections are dealt with by them only. Therefore, they may easily review their Call Books under this category. The details / reporting of CERA objections are also available with the Headquarters Audit Section / jurisdictional Audit Commissionerate. Therefore the higher adjudicating authorities may send a statement, showing details of LAR to the Headquarters Audit Section / jurisdictional Audit Commissionerate, at the beginning of every month. Again, in the statement a column for 'present status' may be made and left blank for being filled up by the Headquarters Audit Section / jurisdictional Audit Commissionerate. Such ease and facilitation by adjudicating authorities to the office, where from they are making a query, may ensure timely reply resulting into timely review of Call Book.

Further, Directorate General of Inspection, New Delhi vide F.No. 503/41/2005 Dated 29.12.2005 suggested that periodic meetings with CERA officials are required for finalization of old audit objections which account for a large number of Call Book cases. The DGI required a special drive for settling old CERA objections in order to reduce the Call Book load.

In the Commissionerates, references made to the Board and specific directions / instructions received thereon are dealt with by the Technical Sections. Therefore, it is necessary that the Technical Section informs the concerned adjudicating authorities in case specific directions / instructions / orders are issued by the Board to transfer the cases to Call Book. For effective monitoring / review of Call Book cases under this category, the adjudicating authorities may send a statement, showing details of the Call Book cases to the Headquarters Technical Section, at the beginning of every month following the procedure stated above for ensuring timely reply from Technical Section which shall result into timely review of Call Book.

CALL BOOK FROM ASSESSEE PERSPECTIVE

It is not even imaginable that an assessee shall think that a belated decision shall be of some benefit to him. In fact, the assessees are seen inquiring about the status of their case in the Department.

The amount of demands in hibernation in Call Book is reflected as a contingent liability in the books of accounts of the assessee. A show cause notice transferred to Call Book in time is generally not likely to be taken out in one to two years time-span. Knowing the trends in adjudication, the assessee can never presume that this is a 'remote contingent liability' and therefore, he 'safely' assumes the demand as a 'probable contingent liability'. Therefore, till such time of hibernation, assuming that the actual adjudication and appellate proceeding take the same time, the assessee carries the demanded amount under the head contingent liability in his Balance Sheets. Such liabilities damage the financial health of the assessee in the eyes of all stake holders of his business including the financial institutions who are sometimes life-line for the assessee; and therefore, most of the times the assessee also has to come up with explanations that these cases casting contingent liability on him are likely to be decided in his favour.

Another aspect from the assessee's point of view is the interest liability that the assessee is likely to incur. The transfer of case to Call Book is part of the administrative process undertaken by the Department and the assessee has no role to play in it. However, it shall be wrong to say that the assessee has nothing to do whatsoever with this hibernation process, because, even if he has no role in the 'play', in case he has to ultimately pay the demanded amount, he also has to pay interest for the period for which the demand was hibernated in Call Book by the Department.

CALL BOOK FROM CERA / C&AG's PERSPECTIVE

Time and again, CERA as well as C&AG Reports indicate irregularities in manner of transfer of cases to Call Book as well as recalling the cases from Call Book for taking up for adjudication. Although, the Board has strictly prescribed four categories of cases that can be transferred to Call Book, it also continually requires adjudicating authorities to review the Call Book cases and higher authorities to monitor the lower adjudicating authorities to keep into check the manner of maintenance and review of Call Book. However, statutory check over the Department is also exercised by office of the Accountant General of Audit through its CERA Section in terms of section 16 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Duties, Power and Conditions of Service) Act. 1971.

The following checks may generally be conducted by CERA while auditing Call Book:

(a) Whether the concept of Call Book is being misused to avoid adjudication;

(b)  Whether the Departmental Appeals in the cases, which were the reason for transfer of cases to Call Book, have been decided;

(c) Whether any appeal similar to that of Departmental Appeal has been decided, which may enable recalling the case from Call Book and adjudicate it to release the locked up revenue;

(d) Whether stay has been vacated in the cases where the cases were transferred to Call Book on the ground of injunctions by Supreme Court / High Court / CESTAT etc.;

(e) Whether the Department has made efforts for early vacation of stay orders in the cases where injunctions have been issued by Supreme Court / High Court / CESTAT etc., so as to release the locked up revenue;

(f) Whether a case similar to the case where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court / High Court / CESTAT etc. has been decided, which may enable vacation of stay in the case, which was the ground for transfer of demand case to Call Book;

(g) In cases where the Board has specifically found that an earlier admitted para shall be contested and resultantly required such cases to be kept in the call book, it has to be checked whether a reference to audit regarding contesting audit objection has been made; and whether any similar nature of cases have been already adjudicated and finalised; or if there are similar cases where courts have given final judgment;

(h) Whether, where the ground of transfer of cases to Call Book was specific directions from the Board, the Board has already issued necessary clarification;

(i) Whether the assessee units, whose cases have been transferred to Call Book, have since been closed down, resulting into loss of potential revenue;

(j) For the cases which are in Call Book for the reasons of Board's specific directions, CERA officers may check if the reason behind directions is some audit objection being contested, and whether any similar nature of cases have been already adjudicated and finalised; or whether in similar cases any Court has given a final judgment;

(k) Whether the cases received for de-novo adjudication from appellate authorities have been transferred to Call Book;

(l) Whether the cases where the report of the Chemical Examiner / CRCL is awaited, have been transferred to Call Book;

(m) Whether cases are transferred to Call Book without approval of Commissioner

However, on a lighter note, the CERA never takes stock of the status of the CERA objections or even notes down the list of cases which were transferred to Call Book for the reason that the Department is contesting the objection. It is also not known whether CERA has a database of show cause notices issued on the basis of objections raised by them, whether accepted or contested by the Department.

In TIOL-DDT 2186 in the article 'Recall the Call Book - CAG tells CBEC', it was reported that a case of frivolously issued demand and it's transferred to Call Book was pointed out in CAG's Report No.17 of 2013 - Indirect Taxes where a dem and of interest on differential duty paid voluntarily by the assessee on account of price revision was kept in the Call Book on the grounds that the a case pertaining to liability of interest and penalty,where the duty was paid before issue of SCN, was pending before the Apex Court. However, Audit observed that the question of payment of interest under Section 11AB on differential duty had already been decided by the Apex court in the case of Commissioner vs. SKF India Ltd. – 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX, in July 2009. Similarly, the court had decided the question of quantum of penalty to be imposed when duty was paid before issue of SCN in Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors – 2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB in September 2008. Therefore, retention of the aforesaid demand in the call book indicated inadequacies in the mechanism for review of call book cases.

CAUTIONS BY BOARD

The Board vide Instructions issued from F. No. 232/160/2008-CX.7, dated 11.08.2011, directed the Chief Commissioner to ensure that the protective SCNs issued in relation to contested audit objections are not inadvertently adjudicated. It was stated that several instances have been noticed where objections of the Audit converted to SOF and higher levels, are contested by jurisdictional Commissioners and yet the Show cause cum demand notices issued in relation to such contested objections enter the adjudication stream and get adjudicated and dropped, as well as accepted in review, while they should have remained in the call book. Such inadvertence, which is contrary to Board's Instruction, placed the Ministry in a severely awkward position. The Chief Commissioners were requested to ensure effective control mechanism in their respective zones so that the above types of situation do not occur.

PLIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT

As always happens, no one hears the Department's side. The largest contributor to Call Book is CERA who also audits and objects to the increased pendency in Call Book. While auditing the Departmental formations, they rarely take into stride with honesty the fact that there are several cases where they themselves have not honestly considered the Departmental reply to the audit objections which have been categorically 'not admitted'.

The Department, in reply to the 'not admitted' audit objection also gives the factual position that a protective demand as envisaged by Board's circulars has been issued. The CERA, instead of taking a decision on the audit objection, starts asking for the fate of the demand issued, knowing that the same cannot be decided. Although, after the 'circular' dated 03.02.2010, such demands may be taken up for adjudication after lapse of one year from sending the reply, but such demands, emanating from the 'not admitted' audit objections can only be 'dropped' by the Department. Therefore, an audit objection has little or no likeliness to be settled.

The Central Excise Department must feel free to have a jealous mindset for a government department where greater pendency can be said to be good performance- that is the CERA section of the office of the Accountant General.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

There is no central database wherefrom details and status of departmental appeals at various appellate forums {Commissioner (Appeals), CESTAT, Revision Authority, High Court or Apex Court} can be enquired into. If there is such a database, this may certainly result in increase in issuance of show cause notices and transfer of all these cases to Call Book at first sight, but this will also help protect the exchequer from substantial loss of revenue in deserving cases. Such increase in Call Book cases is also helpful in putting a check on number of departmental appeals, since on one issue two appeals shall not be filed, which shall increase the success ratio of the Department in appellate forums. Further, this shall also save the department as well as the assessee from having two contradictory decisions, and it is needless to say which of the two shall rely on which of the decisions.

Further, in this age of internet, there is dire need of such a website / webpage with easy search mechanism where the information regarding departmental appeals filed and their present status is available and regularly updated. RSS (Rich Site Summary) is   a format for delivering regularly changing web content. The Board can syndicate the content of the website / webpage as an   RSS Feed so that the adjudicating authorities may stay informed by retrieving the latest content from the website.

Alternatively, to begin with, is it not be possible that the concerned adjudicating authorities only leave a query and the system administrator takes care to inform the status of the Departmental appeal on monthly basis; and when the appeal is decided and accepted or otherwise by Department is also conveyed.

As for the cases where a CERA objection is being contested, the concerned authority in the office of the Accountant General of India should also have a website / webpage in the same manner as suggested above for CBEC wherein the details and contact number of the concerned officers should also be mentioned. This is more than necessary because CERA objections account for major pendency and the present system is of making paper correspondence with the CERA authorities is time consuming and often not early replied to. These are also hardest to monitor.

Alternatively, to begin with, is it not be possible that there be a truly regular monthly meeting of the Departmental officers with concerned authority in the office of the Accountant General wherein the pending objections are discussed so as to reach a consensus. This will certainly go a long way in reducing the number of cases in Call Book.

As for the cases where the Board orders for transfer of cases to Call Book, the Board may also ensure that, as far as possible, the stand on the issue is taken in six months.

Lastly, there is no instruction / circular mandating the adjudicating authorities to inform an assessee,leave apart giving the reasons for the same, when a demand issued to him is transferred to Call Book. The assessee comes to know that his case has been transferred to Call Book when, after a considerable period, he does not hear from the Department and inquires; or hears through the grapevine. The transparency in the adjudication system or Sevottam model should require the adjudicating authority to inform the assessee when his demand is transferred to Call Book along with reasons for the same.

Further, it is also felt that the issues on which a case is transferred to Call Book for the first time in the Commissionerate should be communicated to Board for circulation, so that the issue is known pan India in the Department for necessary action.

IN THE END, SOME QUESTIONS TO PONDER OVER:

•  What adverse can happen if there is no Call Book?

•  Besides, when no one is apparently benefitted with Call Book, what is the use of carrying the concept even, for the cases which may also lock up revenue?

•  Just like there is a circular for taking up the cases for adjudication when nothing is heard from CERA for one year, can the similar concept be also applied to the cases awaiting decision in similar cases from Courts / CESTAT?

•  Should there be a time-frame for the Board to issue clarification on an issue where revenue is stalled in Call Book?

•  Can't there be a limit for the life of any case in Call Book?

•  Is there a proper follow up in the cases where injunctions have been issued by Courts / CESTAT etc.?

•  Can't there be a limit of number of cases / amount locked up for different adjudicating authorities, beyond which they are answerable to their higher authority?

•  Whether a time shall come when there is no Call Book?

As a last word, if the concept of Call Book cannot be done away with, can a software which enables entry, monitoring and review of Call Book and cross-checking of cases with other offices not be developed?

It would be in the fitness of things that a thorough review is undertaken of all the Call Book cases lying around in those tattered registers for the primary reason that in case we move towards the GST regime in the coming year all these cases may also be subsumed in the "cataclysmic" events that would follow!

(The author is a Superintendent, Central Excise and the views expressed are strictly personal.)

( DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the sites)