2014 (10) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT emphasizes Revenue's proactive compliance and vigorous pursuit of remedies to enhance administration

SURAJ PRAKASH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI emphasized the importance of the Revenue pursuing remedies vigorously and complying with High Court directives to ... Strictures against Government - Casual approach towards litigation - Held that:- It is high time for Revenue to rise to the occasion and reduce its litigation without burdening the Tribunal to list the matters frequently in cause list to know status of compliance to stay orders. Aforesaid scenario exhibits laxity of the Commissioners to pursue the litigations before the High Courts. Therefore we direct the Registrar to send a copy of this order expeditiously to the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance for appropriate action so that Revenue shall be litigation free and its blocked Revenue shall be realised as early as possible. Issues: Failure of Revenue to pursue remedies vigorously leading to weak Revenue administration.Issue 1: Lack of Pursuit of Remedies by Revenue in High CourtIn the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal highlighted multiple instances where the Revenue failed to pursue its remedies vigorously in the High Court, leading to a perception of weak Revenue administration. The Tribunal noted cases where stay orders were passed directing the appellant to make pre-deposits, but the Revenue did not actively reduce the litigation. For example, in E/2665/2008, despite a stay order and directions from the High Court, the Revenue did not reduce the litigation. Similar instances were observed in E/314/2010, E/2238/2010, E/593/2011, and E/55166/2013, where the Revenue's lack of action was evident. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue to actively pursue remedies and reduce litigation without burdening the Tribunal with frequent status inquiries.Issue 2: Lack of Compliance with High Court DirectionsThe judgment also highlighted cases where the Revenue did not comply with directions from the High Court. In E/2238/2010, despite a High Court order directing a deposit, the appellant did not fully comply, and the Revenue did not actively pursue the matter. Similarly, in E/593/2011, the High Court had granted a stay based on an undertaking from the appellant, but the Revenue's casual approach hindered progress. The Tribunal expressed surprise at the Revenue's lack of pursuit and the casual approach of the Commissioners in defending Revenue cases before the High Courts. This lack of compliance and proactive action by the Revenue was deemed detrimental to the resolution of cases.Issue 3: Directives to Improve Revenue AdministrationIn response to the observed laxity in Revenue administration, the Tribunal issued directives to address the situation. It directed the Registrar to send a copy of the order to the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, for appropriate action to ensure a litigation-free environment and expedite the realization of blocked Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue to rise to the occasion, reduce litigation, and ensure timely compliance with court orders. By highlighting the laxity in pursuing litigations before High Courts, the Tribunal aimed to prompt a more proactive approach from the Revenue to resolve cases efficiently and recover blocked Revenue promptly.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI underscored the importance of the Revenue pursuing remedies vigorously and complying with High Court directives to avoid a perception of weak Revenue administration. The detailed analysis of cases demonstrated instances where the Revenue's lack of action and compliance hindered the resolution of disputes. The Tribunal's directives aimed to prompt a more proactive and efficient approach from the Revenue to reduce litigation, ensure compliance with court orders, and expedite the realization of blocked Revenue.