|
|
![]() |
|
|
CESTAT Member was a sitting duck in tug of war between DRs & Lawyers AIT News Network Departmental Representatives came out in open with emotional outbursts when they were losing case after case and smelt something wrong and alleged that some lawyers were being unduly favoured by the Bench. Junior of a concerned Lawyers drafted a Representation to Revenue Secretary with copy to President of CESTAT wherein it was stated that the lawyers will not appear in any case if the said 2 Departmental Representatives appear for the Department. A signature campaign was launched and the representation was got signed from several lawyers practicing in CESTAT. A copy was also pasted in the Bar Room. But CESTAT Bar Association disowned the move. DRs were barred from appearing before the Bench but they were now free and had enough time for scanning the Orders passed in cases of so-called favourites which led to conclusion that majority of orders were in favour of so-called favourites. According to sources several orders are said to have been passed in Single Member Bench which pertained to the jurisdiction of Division Bench or in the jurisdiction of Joint Secretary(Revision Application) who decides Drawback and Rebate cases. If it was so; how the said cases were listed by the Registry before Single Member Bench is another mystery and then why did the DRs not file a cross-objection in such cases on grounds of jurisdiction? Member alone cannot be blamed for a fiasco as the whole system failed. But merely because majority of orders passed were not favourable to department cannot be a ground alone for an unexpected action as every order is appealable order and what is requird to be seen is as to how many orders were reversed by the High Court. There must be some additional grounds with the Government as the Discharge order may be challenged in CAT as arbitrary by ex-Member. One who was suitable to preside over Single Member Bench for almost 3 years; how all of a sudden he became not suitable for confirmation even when there were several vacancies of Member(Judicial) in different Benches. 5 Posts of Judicial Members have already been advertised by the Government and all those who are registered as Advocate for a decade are eligible to apply. But after such incidents how many will apply is to be seen. But what added fuel to fire was the 15 days notice sent as a reminder by section of lawyers asking Revenue Secretary to take action against the DRs failing which a Petition was to be filed in High Court for non-action as they wanted withdrawn DRs to face disciplinary action by the Department for their uncomfortable comments. The action against one of the parties became imminent. The fallout was unpredictable and unexpected. But whenever there is a tug of war, one of the parties has to lose. Secretary of CESTAT Bar Association tried to defuse the crisis and issue was almost settled but some elements were not ready to compromise and wanted to prevail and have their own say in the system but their move boomeranged on them and ultimate damage was done to someone they were trying to support. Maxim: There are two types of Lawyers. One who know the law and the other who know the Judge. Related News:
|
|
| Copyright ©
2006 allindiantaxes.com | All rights reserved website designing India & CMS development: Softlogics & Developments |