In April this year the Prime Minister, in a conference with Judges of Supreme Court, has expressed doubt about the functioning of the tribunals. He voiced concern about the low rate of disposal of cases by them. He went to the extent of saying that it necessary to ascertain whether these tribunals were delivering justice or acting as a barrier in it.
He further said that the judges of Supreme Court may have to find out if the tribunals were fast tracking justice delivery or were slowing it down. My view here is that the PM's concern is genuine but the fault lies more on government than on tribunals. Tribunals are as much sinned against as sinning.
The tribunals and courts are not wholly responsible for slow decisions, though they are surely largely responsible. The malady is more deep rooted than it appears. First, the government departments are largely responsible for creating a jam in the tribunals. There are nearly a lakh of cases pending in the CESTAT.
The usual practice in earlier times, like 1960s to 1970s , was to accept the orders of appellate authorities and give refund or any other benefit. Now nobody wants to take that much of decision to give the benefit but just pass on the buck to the Tribunal or courts. So cases pile up at higher appellate level creating a jam, mostly created by the government. This has to be tackled by the government departments by conscious direction from the Minister and CBEC to improve matters by introducing a system of quality audit of how many judgments the officers win in Tribunal .
Any performance of less than 80 per cent cases won by them, will have to be taken as their inefficiency to be entered in their in their confidential report. Secondly, the performance in disposal of cases can be increased if single benches are more empowered. Some lateral thinking is necessary in this respect.At present the division benches of tribunals are busy disposals of short cases and stay petitions. The government is rather pusillanimous about granting the power to decide cases to single bench.
It is limited to Rs 50 lakh if classification or valuation is involved. Even small cases of classification and valuation must be heard by division bench. So the misery continues though stay is an interim measure and the merit will be heard later.
The solution lies in freeing the benches from routine work which can be given to single benches. All compliance matters should be dealt with by the Registrar. Only non-compliance should be reported to single bench.
Where party pays the duty voluntarily and the question of penalty remains, the case should go single bench. Last but not the least, CBEC should allow the departmental
representatives to concede a case at the stay stage. This does not bind the department in the final decision.
We must remember that 85 per cent cases are lost by Revenue in the CESTAT.
So stay petitions need not be fought so hard except cases of high value. But conceding the cases should be done with the permission of CDR in Delhi. So the idea is that division benches should be made free to decide substantial cases and the rest of work should be handled by single benches.
The conclusion is that tribunals have to be improved and not ended. If the tribunals are not there, these many cases will go to the high courts and clog the judicial process.
Moreover one has to remember that the slow functioning of tribunals is not wholly due to the tribunals. The administration of the tribunals is not with the tribunals. The powers of single bench is not decided by the tribunals. If the single benches are more empowered to deal with routine cases and the stay petitions up to certain high values of all types , then the division benches would be able to dispose of more cases on final basis on merit. And the Revenue also should stop filing appeals on the drop of a hat.
smukher2000@yahoo.com
He further said that the judges of Supreme Court may have to find out if the tribunals were fast tracking justice delivery or were slowing it down. My view here is that the PM's concern is genuine but the fault lies more on government than on tribunals. Tribunals are as much sinned against as sinning.
The tribunals and courts are not wholly responsible for slow decisions, though they are surely largely responsible. The malady is more deep rooted than it appears. First, the government departments are largely responsible for creating a jam in the tribunals. There are nearly a lakh of cases pending in the CESTAT.
More From This Section
Most appeals have been filed by Revenue against any favourable orders issued by the lower authorities. The departments have no respect for the orders of the Tribunal and file appeal to the High Court or to the Supreme Court in a most routine manner.
The usual practice in earlier times, like 1960s to 1970s , was to accept the orders of appellate authorities and give refund or any other benefit. Now nobody wants to take that much of decision to give the benefit but just pass on the buck to the Tribunal or courts. So cases pile up at higher appellate level creating a jam, mostly created by the government. This has to be tackled by the government departments by conscious direction from the Minister and CBEC to improve matters by introducing a system of quality audit of how many judgments the officers win in Tribunal .
Any performance of less than 80 per cent cases won by them, will have to be taken as their inefficiency to be entered in their in their confidential report. Secondly, the performance in disposal of cases can be increased if single benches are more empowered. Some lateral thinking is necessary in this respect.At present the division benches of tribunals are busy disposals of short cases and stay petitions. The government is rather pusillanimous about granting the power to decide cases to single bench.
It is limited to Rs 50 lakh if classification or valuation is involved. Even small cases of classification and valuation must be heard by division bench. So the misery continues though stay is an interim measure and the merit will be heard later.
The solution lies in freeing the benches from routine work which can be given to single benches. All compliance matters should be dealt with by the Registrar. Only non-compliance should be reported to single bench.
Where party pays the duty voluntarily and the question of penalty remains, the case should go single bench. Last but not the least, CBEC should allow the departmental
representatives to concede a case at the stay stage. This does not bind the department in the final decision.
We must remember that 85 per cent cases are lost by Revenue in the CESTAT.
So stay petitions need not be fought so hard except cases of high value. But conceding the cases should be done with the permission of CDR in Delhi. So the idea is that division benches should be made free to decide substantial cases and the rest of work should be handled by single benches.
The conclusion is that tribunals have to be improved and not ended. If the tribunals are not there, these many cases will go to the high courts and clog the judicial process.
Moreover one has to remember that the slow functioning of tribunals is not wholly due to the tribunals. The administration of the tribunals is not with the tribunals. The powers of single bench is not decided by the tribunals. If the single benches are more empowered to deal with routine cases and the stay petitions up to certain high values of all types , then the division benches would be able to dispose of more cases on final basis on merit. And the Revenue also should stop filing appeals on the drop of a hat.
smukher2000@yahoo.com