Cus - Tribunal is accountable to citizenry at large and is not required to render an explanation of conduct to executive authority: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, JUNE 06, 2017: THE Commissioner of Customs (Import) has filed an application for rectification of mistake in the final order passed by the CESTAT.
One of the alleged mistakes is that the authority has been variously shown as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II and as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III.
The Bench observed –
"Upon scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the appellant authority has described himself as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II while signing the order while the preamble of the order indicated that it has been passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. We are, therefore, not certain about the identity of the competent appellate authority. In view of this application for rectification of mistakes, and there being no prejudice to either side, we direct the deletion of all ordinal Roman numerals with reference to the appellate authority. Accordingly, all references to the first appellate authority shall read as ‘Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai'."
Another "mistake" in the order, the appellant Commissioner, avers is the "alleged illegality" of the final order.
It is alleged by the Revenue that the order has been issued beyond the period stipulated for issue after conclusion of hearing and without recourse to the condoning authority of the President.
The Bench was peeved with this submission and made the following caustic observations -
++ In our opinion, this is presumptuous on the part of the applicant-Commissioner. A technical hitch, if any, may be relied upon by assessees but it does not behove the dignity of the representative of the state to make a plea when the order itself is elaborate and ‘speaking'.
++ It would appear that applicant-Commissioner is not familiar with the procedures of the Tribunal which is understandable. However, the apparent lack of the statute that is demonstrated cannot be overlooked.
++ We would like to inform the applicant-Commissioner, who has not caused to ascertain the legality of his submission before filing the application that orders of the Tribunal are issued under section 129B of Customs Act, 1962. We do not find any restriction as signaled by the applicant-Commissioner in the statute specifying the limit within which an order shall be passed after hearing.
++ Indeed, except in very specific circumstances, no statute would bind a Tribunal to such timeframe. Time limits, if any, may be self-imposed and may have been occasioned by observations of higher judicial authorities in specific case. It is indeed a consummation devoutly to be wished for that order should be issued promptly after the hearing is complete. However, for one of the litigants to attempt to straitjacket the Tribunal into complying with timelines is not appropriate courteous or warranted.
++ As a Tribunal is composed of public servants, we acknowledge that we are accountable to the citizenry at large. We, however, would not submits ourselves to executive authority or to render an explanation of conduct to such executive authority.
++ It would do well for executive authorities to limit their actions to their appropriate stations in the adjudicating hierarchy and to disabuse from them needs mind that the Tribunal is a subordinate authority who is answerable to them.
++ The proper course for holding the Tribunal to be accountable on this issue is to approach higher judicial authorities. Any other course of action is insubordination. Whether the sanction of the President has been accorded is a matter of public record which is ascertainable from the registry. We do not feel ourselves bound to call for it in these proceedings for judging our own actions. That would be indefensible and we will not deign to do so."
On the other contention made in the ROM application, the Bench deprecated the attempt by the applicant-Commissioner to subvert the appellate hierarchy by contending that the referred case law had been incorrectly applied. The CESTAT noted that accepting the contention of the Revenue would tantamount to revisiting the correctness of its order and which cannot be since it has been rendered functus officio.
Concluding that the CESTAT cannot sit in judgment on its own order, the ROM application was dismissed except for the modification of the nomenclature of the first appellate authority whose order was impugned.
(See 2017-TIOL-1913-CESTAT-MUM)
