CBEC- Why Commissioners are not able to pass Adjudication Orders?

F.No. C-30013/19/2012-Ad.IVA/Ad.11
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
(Central Board of Excise & Customs)

North Block, New Delhi Dated the 25^th June, 2013

To

All Chief Commissioners / DGs under CBEC

Sub:   Action Points emanating out of CCs/DGs Conference held on 28.08.2012 – reg.

Madam/Sir,

During the Conference of the Chief Commissioner / Directors Generals with the Hon’ble Finance Minister on 28.08.2012 in Delhi, the issue of high pendency of Adjudication cases raised by Mr. S.B. Singh, Chief Commissioner, Hyderabad and Shri Sushil Solanki, Commissioner (ST), Mumbai-I was discussed. It was proposed, therein, to grant powers to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioners to assign the Commissioners (Appeals), having less work under their respective charges, the powers of Adjudication. It was directed by the Hon’ble FM that CBEC should immediately delegate the powers to the CCs.

2. It was, inter alia, brought out by DG HRD in the Review Meeting held on 05.10.2010 that as per existing laws – Section 5(3) of Customs Act and Section 12E(2) of Central Excise Act, Commissioner (A) cannot exercise the power of Commissioner (Adj.). Thus, in order to liquidate pendencies, all CCs had been directed to re-distribute pending cases among available Executive Commissioners within their Zone. Only five Zones had reportedly large pendency. CC, Mumbai-I and Delhi had already distributed the pending cases among other Commissioners. CC, Hyderabad and CC, Vadodara had requested for posting of Commissioner (Adj.). CC, Meerut informed that there was no need to re-allocate. Hon’ble FM had then directed to explore possibility of posting an extra Commissioner each for adjudication at Hyderabad and Vadodara.

 3. It has also been brought out by the DGHRD that at present out of total 295 posts in the grade of Commissioner 44 posts are vacant. Further, three officers are under suspension. Thus, the effective working strength in the grade is only 248. In addition, one officer is on unauthorized leave. In such a situation wherein 16% posts in the grade of Commissioner are vacant, it may not be possible for CBEC to post extra Commissioner level officers to Hyderabad and Vadodara Zones exclusively for adjudication of pending cases.

4. Accordingly, the matter has duly been examined in consultation with DGHRD. It emerged that since it may not be possible to assign the adjudication powers to the Commissioner (Appeals) in view of the provisions contained in the Central Excise Act 1944, the issue of clearance of pendency of Adjudication may be addressed to by the Chief Commissioners by allocating the pending cases for adjudication to the Commissioners under their charge who are not Commissioners (Appeals) or by divesting a Commissioner (Appeals) with lower pendency of cases under their charge from Appeals work by allocating the Appeals cases pending with him/her to other Commissioners (Appeals) in the Zone, and, thereafter, assigning him/her the task of Commissioner (Adjudication) with the approval of the CBEC.

5. It may, however be mentioned here that a proposal for promotion to the grade of Commissioners on ad-hoc basis is presently under consideration of the DOPT/ACC. After the said proposal is through, the problem of vacancies in the grade of Commissioners is likely to be fully addressed to in near future.