Complicated 'Committee of Commissioners' - More Complications
TIOL-DDT 2761
08 01 2016
Friday
Complicated 'Committee of Commissioners' - More Complications
AS is well known, Adjudication Orders of Commissioners are reviewed by a Committee of two Chief Commissioners and those of Commissioners(A) are reviewed by a Committee of Commissioners. Appeals are filed before the CESTAT based on the review and authorisation by these committees. Since the day these Committees came into existence there have been several disputes on the committee system itself.
With too many posts of Commissioners, Principal Commissioners, Chief Commissioners and Principal Chief Commissioners created and with too many vacancies in all the cadres, there is confusion all around.
What happens if there is difference of opinion between the two Commissioners or Chief Commissioners in the Committees? In case of the Committee of Chief Commissioners, the matter is referred to the Board and in case of the Committee of Commissioners, the matter is referred to the Chief Commissioner.
We must remember that the Chief Commissioner and Principal Chief Commissioner have the same powers; the Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner have the same powers. Some Principal Commissioners are asked to hold the post of Chief Commissioners; so a PC holding the additional post of a CC, is a Commissioner, PC, CC and PCC all rolled into one.
Let us see the complicated system with an example.
For our study, let us take the Ahmedabad Central Excise Zone, two Commissionerates and one Commissioner(Appeals) in the zone.
The Zone is headed by a Chief Commissioner, but there is no Chief Commissioner right now. So, a Principal Commissioner is holding the charge of Chief Commissioner. Mr. Kabirpanthi is the PC holding the post of Chief Commissioner.
The Ahmedabad I Commissionerate is headed by a PC. Mr. Kabirpanthi is the PC. Please note he is also the in-charge CC of the Zone under which his Commissionerate falls.
The Ahmedabad II Commissionerate is headed by a Commissioner - Mr. JA Khan is the Commissioner. There are also other Commissionerates in the zone, which are not important for our study.
There is a Commissioner (Appeals) - Mr. Uma Shanker.
Now an order passed by Mr. Uma Shankar is to be reviewed by a Committee of Mr. Kabirpanthi and Mr. JA Khan. If these two have a difference of opinion, the matter is to be referred to the Chief Commissioner. Mr. Kabirpanthi is the Chief Commissioner(in charge). So the matter has to be referred to Mr. Kabirpanthi. Ridiculous? But that is the law. Obviously, the Board did not visualise such a situation where when two Commissioners differ, the matter is referred to one of them!
Board realised this situation recently and observed,
Instances have been noticed wherein the Principal Commissioners are acting as Chief Commissioner of their respective Zones as well as the members of the Committee of the Commissioners formed for the purpose of reviewing the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) within their jurisdiction under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 86(2A) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In such a situation, they would not be in a position to decide the matter as the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner under the said sections in case there is any difference of opinion between the members of the review committee. Ideally, the Principal Commissioners holding the charge of Chief Commissioner of their Zones should not be members of the Committee of Commissioners formed for the review of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) under the said sections. But, there may be situations where due to unavailability of Commissioners, the Principal Commissioners holding the charge of Chief Commissioner will also have to act as a member of the said review committee of the Commissioners.
By Office Order No. 220/2012 dated 23.11.2012, Board had created a First Link Officer and a Second Link Officer for each zone. For Example, for Ahmedabad Zone, the First Link Officer is the Ahmedabad Customs Chief Commissioner and the Second Link Officer is the Vadodara Central Excise Chief Commissioner.
Now, Board wants the 'link officer' system to be followed in our example. So if Mr. Kabirpanthi and Mr. JA Khan differ, the matter has to be referred to the Ahmedabad Customs Chief Commissioner and not to Mr. Kabirpanthi.
Should we have such a complicated system which is in any case a massive failure and a mockery of administration of law?
(Disclaimer: The names are only illustrative and need not necessarily be correct. They are taken from the websites of the Commissionerates.)
CBEC Office Order No. 24/2015 in F.No.390/Review/ 36 /2014-JC-Pt-I., Dated December 17, 2015
24X7 Customs Clearance -Krishnapatnam port
BOARD had made available the facility of 24x7 Customs clearance for specified imports viz. goods covered by 'facilitated' Bills of Entry and specified exports viz. factory stuffed containers and goods exported under free Shipping Bills at 18 sea ports besides 17 Air Cargo Complexes.
Board has now decided that the facility of 24x7 Customs clearance for specified imports viz. goods covered by 'facilitated' Bills of Entry and specified exports viz. factory stuffed containers and goods exported under free Shipping Bills will be made available at Krishnapatnam Sea port in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. This would be the 19th Sea port in the country where 24x7 facility would be in operation.
CBEC Circular No. 01/2016., Dated January 06 2016
Excise Exemption to Goods Supplied to International Agencies -Board Clarifies
CENTRAL Excise duty for the goods required for the execution of works financed by International Funding Organisation like World bank is exempted under Notification No. 108/95-Central Excise, dated 28.08.1995.
As per provision of this Notification, certificate for availing excise duty exemption is to be signed by Executive Head of the Project Implementing Authority and countersigned by an Officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in the concerned line Ministry in the Government of India.
A reference was received from the Minister of Road Transport Highways and Shipping, Government of India that it has undertaken projects with the loan assistance of World Bank under National Highways Interconnectivity Improvement Programme (NHIP) and different interpretations with regard to “ line ministry” and “officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in the concerned line Ministry” have been made by the field formation.
The ministry requested that certificates issued by the concerned Superintending Engineer and countersigned by Chief Engineer in the rank of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, should be honoured by the field formations.
Board has examined the issue and clarifies that:
The language of the notification is abundantly clear. As per the notification, 'Line Ministry' means a ministry in Government of India, which has been so nominated with respect to a project by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs). Therefore, in this case, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways is the 'Line Ministry'.
As per the condition, certificate is to be countersigned by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to Government of India in such Ministry i.e. Line Ministry. The certificate countersigned by Chief Engineer in the rank of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways satisfies the other condition .
Board informs the field that in view of this clarification, certificates issued by the concerned Superintending Engineer and countersigned by Chief Engineer in the rank of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, should be honoured.
Let's hope they are duly honoured.
CBEC Instruction in F.No.96/41/2015-CX.I., Dated: January 07, 2016
Customs - New Exchange Rates from Today
CBEC has notified new exchange rates for Imported Goods and for Export Goods with effect from 8th January 2016. The USD is at 67.45 Rupees for imports and 66.40 Rupees for exports.
Notification No. 02/2016-Cus (NT)., Dated: January 07, 2016
Monkey Loses Copyright Case
DDT 2692 24 09 2015 had reported:
|
 THIS monkey took its selfie and now wants copyright.
In 2011, photographer David Slater visited a forest and left his camera on a tripod for sometime and the monkeys had a field day. A monkey came and took a selfie, by clicking the camera. Slater used the monkey selfie in his book 'wildlife personalities'.
If a monkey takes a selfie in a forest, who owns the copyright of the photograph? One view is that since only human beings can own copyrights, the monkey cannot own it and if the monkey doesn't own it, nobody else does.
But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) thinks otherwise. It believes that the monkey has copyright and PETA has now sued Slater in U.S. District Court in Northern California. The Complaint by PETA states,
The monkey has the right to own and benefit from the copyright in the Monkey Selfies in the same manner and to the same extent as any other author;
All proceeds from the sale, licensing, and other commercial uses of the Monkey Selfies … [should] be used solely for the benefit of the monkey, his family and his community, including the preservation of their habitat;
PETA filed the suit under the legal designation “next friend,” used by those filing for those who cannot file themselves.
|
|
The latest news is - the monkey lost the case in the US District Court on Wednesday. The District Judge said, "I'm not the person to weigh into this; this is an issue for Congress and the president. If they think animals should have the right of copyright they're free, I think, under the Constitution, to do that."
|
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a nice weekend.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in
