2008 (7) TMI 36 - AT - Central Excise

Delay in constituting Review Committee (resulting in huge revenue loss) has to be explained before Tribunal - When a court is left with an unavoidable impression that important aspects of the case was not satisfactorily brought out clearly by materials on record, that requires a Court to find truth through process of summon & affidavits - Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure have empowered Tribunal to exercise powers of a Civil Court in this respect while hearing Appeal

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correction of Typographical Error in Miscellaneous Application.
2. Validity of Affidavit Filed by Member, CBE & C.
3. Deposition by Deputy Secretary, Government of India.
4. Time Taken by CBE & C for Review.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correction of Typographical Error in Miscellaneous Application:
The Commissioner filed M.A. No. 237/08 to correct a typographical error in his earlier MA(COD) No. 280/07. The Tribunal allowed this correction, changing "December, 2005" to "December, 2006" in both the application and the Tribunal's earlier Misc. Order No. M-174/KOL/08 dated 9-6-08. This adjustment ensures accuracy in the documentation.

2. Validity of Affidavit Filed by Member, CBE & C:
The Tribunal scrutinized an affidavit filed by Shri B.K. Gupta, Member of the Board, which bore discrepancies in its verification dates-signed on 2nd July 2008 but notarized on 3rd July 2008. The Tribunal noted that the affidavit lacked depositions and was unauthenticated, rendering it inadmissible. This aligns with the judicial principle that affidavits must be verified correctly to be considered valid evidence, as emphasized in A.K.K. Nambiar v. UOI & Ors. - 1969 (3) SCC 864.

3. Deposition by Deputy Secretary, Government of India:
Shri Ashok Chakrabarti, Deputy Secretary, admitted his lack of knowledge regarding Customs and Excise law and the statutory provisions for appointing and posting Customs and Excise Commissioners and Chief Commissioners. His deposition revealed significant administrative lapses, including the issuance of office orders without proper gazette notifications. The Tribunal highlighted the confusion and inefficiency within the Central Board of Excise and Customs, emphasizing the need for statutory compliance and proper administrative procedures.

4. Time Taken by CBE & C for Review:
The Tribunal examined the time taken by the Board to review orders before the power was transferred to the Committee of Chief Commissioners. The study showed that the Board often reviewed orders at the last moment, indicating inefficiency. The Tribunal stressed the importance of timely reviews and the need for satisfactory explanations for delays, particularly in the context of the impugned case where the Chief Commissioners' Committee was not constituted in time.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal addressed multiple administrative and procedural issues, emphasizing the need for accuracy in documentation, proper verification of affidavits, statutory compliance in appointments, and timely reviews. The Tribunal directed Shri B.K. Gupta to appear in person for further deposition on 20-8-2008, highlighting the significance of accountability and procedural correctness in judicial and administrative processes.