TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal ruling on MACP benefits withdrawal by Central Excise officers: Merit-based review ordered</h1> <h3>JAYESH JADIA S/O UMEDLAL JADIA Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court addressed issues related to the interpretation and withdrawal of benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP). The ... Withdrawal of the 3rd financial upgradation granted in the grade pay of ₹ 6600/- along with the recovery process to be initiated by the department of Central Excise and Customs - HELD THAT:- In wake of the pendency of the matter for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Union of India vs. M.V.Mohanan Nair and other five SLPs, the Delhi High Court has been followed by the Tribunal where it noticed the different views by different High Courts. The issues raised before the Tribunal in all these original applications concern the interpretation and clarification of grant of 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP to the superintendents by placing them in pay band- III with grade pay of 6600/- who were granted non-functional grade pay of ₹ 5400/- in pay band- II. Only on the ground that in case of petitioner, there has been no individual examination in wake of pendency of matter before the Supreme Court, let all the matters be examined by the Tribunal on merits, with whatever the scope is left, as individual examination on merit in each petition would be necessary, even if, the legal issue stands covered, more particularly, since certain directions have been issued by the Apex Court to the Union of India in the very decision, which it is bound to follow, the same shall also needed to be applied in case of each of the petitioners. To deny consideration on merit in individual case may amount to jeopardizing the right to be considered. All matters are remanded for fresh consideration on merit in wake of the delivery of the aforesaid decision - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Interpretation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) regarding financial upgradation.2. Withdrawal of the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP scheme.3. Conflicting decisions of different High Courts on the MACP scheme.4. Consideration of individual cases pending before the Supreme Court.5. Compliance with directions issued by the Apex Court regarding the MACP scheme.Issue 1: Interpretation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) regarding financial upgradation:The petitioners, serving as Superintendents/Assistant Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs, contested the withdrawal of the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme to the grade of Rs. 6600/-, claiming entitlement based on completion of 30 years of service. They challenged the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) regarding the grant of financial upgradation, asserting their right to the 3rd MACP in the grade pay of Rs. 6600/-. The petitioners sought restoration of the benefit and a declaration that the actions of the respondents were ultra vires the MACP Scheme and the 6th Pay Commission's recommendations.Issue 2: Withdrawal of the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP scheme:The petitioners raised grievances against the withdrawal of the benefit of financial upgradation granted in the grade pay of Rs. 6600/-, along with the initiation of a recovery process by the Central Excise and Customs department. They argued that the actions of the respondents sought to nullify the effect of previous judgments, specifically citing a case before the Madras High Court. The petitioners sought the restoration of the benefit of the 3rd MACP upgradation and challenged the clarification that considered the non-functional grade pay of Rs. 5400/- as a financial upgradation under the MACP scheme.Issue 3: Conflicting decisions of different High Courts on the MACP scheme:The judgment highlighted conflicting decisions of various High Courts regarding the interpretation of the MACP scheme. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision not to entertain the original applications due to the matter being pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioners emphasized the need for individual examination on merit in each case, especially in light of the differing views of the High Courts and the directions issued by the Apex Court.Issue 4: Consideration of individual cases pending before the Supreme Court:The Court acknowledged that individual cases had not been examined due to the pending matter before the Supreme Court. It directed the Tribunal to reexamine all matters on merit within six months, ensuring that each petitioner's case is considered individually despite the legal issues being addressed by the Apex Court. The Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the right to be considered in each case.Issue 5: Compliance with directions issued by the Apex Court regarding the MACP scheme:In light of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Delhi High Court's view on the MACP scheme, the Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider all matters on merit. The Court emphasized the need to apply the directions issued by the Apex Court to the Union of India in each petitioner's case to ensure compliance with the policy and safeguard the rights of the petitioners.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved, including the interpretation of the MACP scheme, withdrawal of benefits, conflicting court decisions, consideration of individual cases, and compliance with directions from the Apex Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
