MUMBAI, DEC 25, 2012: ONE the one hand the Central Excise authorities are leaving no stone unturned to recover the dues from the assessees and in this endeavour they do not fear flouting the settled law. They seem to have become a law unto themselves and even act like goons out to recover an unpaid vehicle loan EMI. Incidentally, as reported by us the CESTAT has already initiated contempt action in a case and in another asked the Registry to refer the matter to the CBEC for initiating action against the officer.

But, the Customs authorities seem to be at leisure. They are not adjudicating a case of the year 1989 in remand proceedings inspite of the CESTAT asking them to do it within a specified time.

Now, to the case - The backdrop to the flurry of miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue is that vide an order dated 14.02.2012 the Bench had directed the department to adjudicate the matter within 90 days from the date of communication of the order.

Fearing for the worst, the Revenue is before the bench with a Miscellaneous application and has a wonderful excuse for the job not done – that there is a mistake in the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Bench inasmuch as that the respondent's name is Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, but the covering letter of the order, the respondent's name is shown as Commissioner of Customs (CSI Airport), Mumbai, and, therefore, this part of the order needs rectification.

The Bench in its order observed –

“3. We find that in the order itself the respondent's name is incorporated as Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. Therefore, we do not find any mistake committed by this Tribunal while passing the order. Accordingly, the application for rectification of mistake deserves no merits and the same is dismissed.”

See 2012-TIOL-1925-CESTAT-MUM

When the matter was called by the Bench on 30.10.2012 for ascertaining compliance, the Bench was informed that the adjudication had not yet taken place. Noting that the issue pertains to the year 1989, the CESTAT directed the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter within 30 days failing which appropriate action would be taken against the adjudicating authority. [See 2012-TIOL-1926-CESTAT-MUM]

Incidentally, on both the occasions, the respondent was not represented and both the orders were passed on 30.10.2012.

On 13.12.2012, the case was called by the Bench to ascertain as to whether the adjudication order had been passed by 30.11.2012 as directed vide its earlier order dated 30.10.2012.

The Revenue representative had the same answer – the adjudication order has not been passed as yet. He further submitted that the post of Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai who has to adjudicate the matter is lying vacant. But he assured the Bench that he will take up the matter with CBE & C to allot the case for adjudication to any other Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai.

The Bench, therefore, passed the following order –

“3. In this peculiar circumstances, we direct the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai to get the adjudicating authority appointed for this purpose and get the matter adjudicated within a period of one month from today in terms of the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by this Tribunal after giving due notice to the appellant. Compliance is to be reported on 15.01.2013.

4. Order be given Dasti.”

We would be happy to report the outcome of the proceedings, if any, that take place on the 15 th January, 2013.

It is also hoped that the giant machinery in the CBEC moves at a lightning pace so that the poor AR doesn't get an earful the day he is to report compliance.

(See 2012-TIOL-1927-CESTAT-MUM)