Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com HRindiaonline.com
 
LOGIN
Forgot Password |  Register
Wednesday , April 23, 2014 | Updated : Apr 23, 13:07 IST
Income Tax    Customs    Excise    Service Tax    FEMA    DGFT    SEZ    Misc    Pitara    Budget   
About Us Contact Us Advertise
Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com
NEWS FLASH
 
CENVAT credit on Construction service received prior to 01.04.2011 - services had been rendered and billed prior to 1.4.2011 for which payment has also been paid prior to 1.4.2011 - Credit taken on 28.04.2011 cannot be held to be improper : CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') CX - So-called 'special discount' is not discount at all is established by fact that it was never passed on to customers of cars and, therefore, is includible in AV - Demand of Rs 59 Cr upheld: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') CAG entitled to audit private telecom service providers - SC (See 'DDT' Column) ST - Tax of more than Rs 5.8 Cr collected from clients but not deposited with Govt - suppression of facts with willful intention to evade duty is manifest - no merit in plea for waiver of SCN as s.73(4) expressly disentitles same: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Disposal by Commissioner (A) - Quantity or Quality? (See 'DDT') Income tax - Whether when assessee holds substantial shares in partnership firm and also Company, any trade advance given by company to firm is to be treated as deemed dividend - NO: ITAT (See 'Breaking News') What about Central Excise and Service Tax Audit? (See 'DDT') CX - Sum claimed as refund is not shown as 'receivables' in books and same were expensed out in P&L a/c - Claim hit by unjust enrichment: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Chennai CBI Court convicts Customs Appraiser for one year in bribery case Former Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramanian book raps Govt for poor decision making process ST - BAS provided to foreign clients - When RBI permits that remuneration towards services provided can be received in IC, in that situation it cannot be said that services are not exports -Stay dismissed: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') Settlement - Even in cases where there is notice u/s 124 of Customs Act, which does not propose customs duty, applicant must self-assess liability and pay such amount as pre-condition - Petition dismissed: High Court (See 'Breaking News') MoF invites applications for post of Chairman of Settlement Commission (Customs & Excise') (See 'Service News' in Pitara) CENVAT Credit on input service of GTA up to Place of Removal - what is place of removal when rate of duty is specific? HC stays Tribunal Order (See 'DDT') ST - Revenue cannot be allowed to receive tax twice in on same construction, once from contractor and second time from person who has collected same: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News') RBI clarifies on FDI in pharma sector (See Cir 124 in 'What's New') I-T - Whether when irregularities are pointed out in Special Audit & fact that assessee was also given chance to inspect records seized but it did not avail it, penalty is inescapable consequence - YES: Delhi HC (See 'Breaking News') Tour operators: Travelling in uncertainities of law - Part-II (See 'ST se GST tak' Column) Kerala General Sales Tax Act - sale by brand name holder or trade mark holder to be first sale for purpose of Sec 5(2): Supreme Court (See 'Breaking News') Anti Dumping Notification Expired- CBEC are you aware? (See 'DDT') I-T - Whether assessment can be reopened based on audit objections which give rise to only hypothetical income: HC (See '2014-TIOL-534') Lame Duck appointments - Principal Economic Adviser appointed in Fin Min ('DDT') SC allows iron ore mining in Goa but caps upper limit to 20 MT annually Delhi CBI nabs close relative of Director (Audit) New Delhi for demanding a bribe of Rs 35 lakh for regularising irregularities of a Nursing College Nagpur Airport Customs seizes gold wire & chain worth Rs 16.4 lakh from pax coming from Sharjah Justice Gorla Rohini takes over as First Woman Chief Justice of Delhi HC Appeals to Tribunal - Reference to TM - COMMISSIONER challenges CESTAT President's choice of Third Member - HC declines to interfere (See 'DDT' Column) Cus - Refund of SAD under Notification 102/2007 - Amendment made vide Notification No 93/2008 inserting limitation cannot be applied retrospectively: HC (See 'Breaking News') Indian Patent Regime - Bitter pill, Placebo or Panacea? (See 'Guest' Column)
 
Bookmark and Share
Promotion to Commissioner-level in CBEC - New Year Gift to Appraiser Promotees – Commissioner DPC to be held by December 31– Good News for Direct recruits as well - High Court directs Government to promote those already recommended by DPC held on June 23, 2008

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, NOV 25, 2008 : THIS is the dispute which has caused undue delay in some Additional Commissioners in Customs and Central Excise getting promoted as Commissioners.

The Union of India had prepared a seniority list in 2004 of all the Assistant Commissioners, that is, Assistant Commissioners who came from the stream of direct recruits and those who came by way of promotion from the grade of Appraiser and Superintendent. This seniority list appears to have been the subject matter of a challenge and was struck down. The Union of India also prepared another integrated seniority list published on 28th April, 2005. The integrated 2005 seniority list was operated for making promotions to the post of Joint Commissioner. It appears that today this 2005 seniority list is the only existing or operative seniority list.

In respect of one case taken up by the Madras High Court, judgment was delivered on 21st April, 2006 wherein certain principles were laid down with respect to the fixation of seniority of Appraisers and Superintendents. The decision rendered by the Madras High Court was taken up to the Supreme Court in Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association v. Union of India and Others - 2008-TIOL-109-SC-SERVICE. The Supreme Court approved the principles laid down by the Madras High Court.

The sum and substance of the decision of the Supreme Court is two fold: firstly, the seniority of Appraisers and Superintendents is required to be redrawn on certain principles; secondly, the seniority of Appraisers and Superintendents is again open till it is redrawn and finalized. The effect of this will, of course, be felt up the ladder.

While litigation on seniority was in full swing in several judicial forums, the Union of India/Central Board of Excise and Customs decided to fill up 48 vacancies in the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. From the note put up before the Departmental Promotions Committee it appears that the Union of India decided, on the basis of some calculations made by it, that 36 vacancies are to be filled up from the category of directly recruited Assistant Commissioners while 12 vacancies fall to the category of promotee Assistant Commissioners (promoted from the grade of Appraisers and Superintendents). It also transpires from a reading of the note that since there was no dispute about the seniority of the directly recruited Assistant Commissioners, the DPC was requested to make recommendations to fill up only those 36 vacancies. With regard to the 12 vacancies which fell to the category of promotee Assistant Commissioners, the matter was kept in abeyance pending finalization of the inter se seniority of Appraisers and Superintendents. In other words, the integrated seniority list of 2005 was given a partial go by. From the note it also appears that one of the reasons for holding back the filling up of 12 vacancies is that a case for contempt of Court was pending before the Madras High Court (since decided).

The DPC met soon thereafter and made its recommendations on 23rd June, 2008 concerning promotions of directly recruited Assistant Commissioners to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. None of the promotee Assistant Commissioners was considered for promotion.

Feeling upset with this situation, the promotee Assistant Commissioners (actually now Additional Commissioners) preferred O.A. No. 1366/2008 before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The prayer made by the promotee Assistant Commissioners/Additional Commissioners was for a declaration to the Union of India to follow the draft seniority list of 2005 in its entirety, and without excluding them from consideration. It was also prayed that the proceedings of the DPC held on 23rd June, 2008 be set aside to the extent that the DPC considered the case of persons who were junior to the promotee Assistant Commissioners/Additional Commissioners. The third important prayer was for a direction to the Union of India to hold a review DPC and consider the case of the promotee Assistant Commissioners/Additional Commissioners for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise before any of their juniors from the draft 2005 seniority list are considered.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal granted a blanket stay of the recommendations of the DPC with the result that even those directly recruited Assistant Commissioners (now Additional Commissioners) who could be promoted as Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise were injuncted from holding that post. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 7th August, 2008 was subsequently modified by another order on 17th October, 2008 whereby the Union of India was permitted to promote those directly recruited Assistant Commissioners to the grade of Commissioner, who were senior to the promotee Assistant Commissioners before the Tribunal.

While there is a partial modification of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 7th August, 2008 the substantive grievance raised by the promotee Assistant Commissioners before the Tribunal continues to remain, which is that they were not considered for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.

The High Court observed,

the public interest requires that all the posts of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise should be filled up by the Union of India. There is no doubt that that grade consists of senior posts in the Government of India and it does not serve anybody’s purpose whatsoever if 48 of these posts lie vacant all over the country (as a result of the impugned order). Similarly, it does not serve anybody’s purpose if only 8 out of these 48 posts are filled up (as a result of order dated 17th October, 2008). The more appropriate course of action would be endeavouring to fill up all the 48 posts so that administrative efficiency does not suffer.

It appears inequitable that until the seniority list is finalized on the principles accepted by the Supreme Court (which may take any amount of time), a vacuum should exist in respect of the posts of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise from the promotee Assistant Commissioner category. To avoid such a vacuum, which really does not serve any public purpose, it would be appropriate if the 2005 seniority list is actually given full effect to on an ad-hoc basis, subject to implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court.

Rule 24 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ Rules, 1987 makes it quite clear that a senior person cannot be ignored for consideration for promotion if his junior is considered. In the present case, there is admittedly no dispute that some persons junior to the promotee Assistant Commissioners fall in the category of directly recruited Assistant Commissioners who have not only been considered for promotion but have actually been selected. This is contrary to the plain language of Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules.

So the High Court held:

(i) The Union of India should convene a DPC within a period of one month from today and in any case on or before 31st December, 2008 and consider the promotee Appraisers and Superintendents (who are now Additional Commissioners) for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on the basis of the 2005 seniority list adverted to above.

(ii) The Union of India should go ahead and promote those already recommended for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise by the DPC held on 23rd June, 2008 but the promotions so made will be purely ad hoc in view of the Office Memorandum dated 30th March, 1988 which deals with revision of the seniority list and provides that ad hoc arrangements should be made instead of delaying regular promotions. All promotions whether of directly recruited Assistant Commissioners or promotee Assistant Commissioners/Additional Commissioners will be on an ad hoc basis and subject to final orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1366/2008.

The High Court requested

(i) the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal to look into the matter and transfer cases similar to the present one pending in any other Bench of the Tribunal to one central place so that there is no conflict of decisions. This is only a request and not a direction.

(ii) the Bench hearing O.A.No.1366/2008 to expedite the disposal of the Original Application pending before it. We have no doubt that all the parties involved in this litigation will fully co-operate with the Tribunal for an early resolution of the dispute.

(See 2008-TIOL-577-HC-DEL-SERVICE in 'Service case laws' in Pitara + 2008-TIOL-577-HC-DEL-SERVICE in 'Legal Corner')


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
 
TIOL SEARCH
 
TIOL Mobile App
TIOL Subscriptions
 All-In-One Package
 Indirect Tax Package
 Income Tax Package
<< More Packages>>
 
   
             
Income Tax Customs Excise Service Tax FEMA DGFT SEZ Misc Pitara Budget
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • ITAT Cases
  • Instructions
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Other Case
  • Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Safeguard Duty Notfn
  • Anti-dumping Notfn
  • Drawback Cases
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Excise Amendment
  • Clean Energy Cess Notfn
  • MISC Circulars
  • Commr.(A) Order
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Miscellaneous
  • Advance Ruling
  • FAQ
  • Finance Act, 1994
  • Commr. (A) Orders
  • Removal of Difficulty
  • VCES
  • Accounting Head
  • Exchange Manual
  • Fema Notifications
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • RBI Notifications
  • Act
  • Rules
  • Regulations
  • Master Circulars
  • RBI Circulars
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • Public Notices
  • Trade Notice
  • FTDR Amendment 2010
  • MISC
  • State Acts
  • Notifications
  • Instructions
  • Act 2005
  • Rules 2006
  • DGEP
  • State Policy
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • VAT Cases
  • Deputation Posts
  • Service News
  • The Insider
  • Transfer
  • Promotion
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Transfer Policy
  • Training Circulars
  • Service Cases
  • MISC
  • Pay Commission
  • Cadre Review
  • Budget Circular 2013-14
  • Union Budgets
  • Economic Surveys
  • Budget Speeches
  • Finance Acts
  • Finance Bill
  • TRU - D. O. Letter
  • A Taxindiaonline Website. Copyright © 2014 Taxindiaonline.com Pvt.Ltd. All rights reserved. | Powered by 4th Dimension