2015 (9) TMI 1337 - HC - Central Excise

Pending cases since long - Engagement of Advocate by the Commissionerate to plead the case on behalf of revenue - who will argue the case - Held that - We are nobody to comment on the procedure followed by the Revenue. - When complaints are made that old matters are not being taken up and given priority, then, firstly the Revenue/State should put its house in order. There are many old matters pending and for more than 10 years and having serious revenue implications. In the circumstances, let a copy of this order be sent to the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs of each Commissionerate. We would expect high level officers to apply their mind so as to enable this Court to take up the old Appeals for hearing and disposal. They must take immediate steps to replace the old Advocates, else we would be constrained to dispose of them in their absence.

Summary

Issues:
1. Procedure followed by the Revenue for engaging Advocates to represent them in Appeals.
2. Lack of decision by the concerned Commissionerate on replacing the Advocate for a pending Appeal.
3. Delay in hearing and disposing of old Appeals with serious revenue implications.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the procedure followed by the Revenue for engaging Advocates to represent them in Appeals. It highlights a significant change in the system where each Commissionerate exercises discretion to choose an Advocate from a list for representation. The Court emphasizes the importance of having authorized Advocates to act, appear, and plead on behalf of the Commissioners. The judgment expresses concern over delays caused by the lack of clarity on who will argue the Appeals on behalf of the Commissioners, emphasizing the need for a structured approach in engaging Advocates for efficient representation.

2. The judgment points out a specific issue where the concerned Commissionerate has not made a decision on replacing an Advocate for a pending Appeal. The Court notes complaints about old matters not being prioritized and stresses the importance of the Revenue/State putting its house in order. It highlights the presence of many old matters pending for over 10 years with significant revenue implications. The Court directs the Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs of each Commissionerate to take immediate steps to replace old Advocates within three weeks to enable the Court to hear and dispose of old Appeals efficiently.

3. The judgment addresses the delay in hearing and disposing of old Appeals with serious revenue implications. It emphasizes the need for high-level officers to apply their minds to facilitate the Court in taking up old Appeals for hearing and disposal. The Court warns that if immediate steps are not taken to replace old Advocates, they would be constrained to dispose of the Appeals in their absence. The judgment sets a deadline for the concerned authorities to replace old Advocates and schedules a follow-up date for the Appeal to be placed before the Court for further proceedings.