" IRS OFFICERS PROMOTED FROM THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF AIACEGEO. THIS IS THE ONLY ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERINTENDENTS OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND IRS OFFICERS PROMOTED FROM THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH OUT THE COUNTRY . President Mr.T.Dass and SG Mr. Harpal Singh.

Tuesday 18 June 2013

The Superintendent Central Excise, Shri Naga Rajeswara Rao,

An assessee filed an appeal before the CESTAT along with stay application. Against the recovery proceedings initiated by the Superintendent, they made a mention before the CESTAT and got an ad interim stay against the recovery. The assessee communicated the same to the Superintendent with a marginal remark "the Tribunal was pleased to grant ad interim stay till the stay application is disposed" and supposedly enclosed a copy of the order.

However, the Superintendent issued another letter to the assessee mentioning that the marginal remarks cannot be taken as stay by the CESTAT and asked the assessee to pay the duty within three days, failing which recovery proceedings would be initiated.

The assessee again approached the CESTAT.

The Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, Kakinada was summoned by the CESTAT, Bangalore for the reason that his reply dt. 11/03/2013 addressed to the applicant contained the following observations: "On perusal of the Appendix XXVI dt. 06/03/2013 enclosed to your letter dt. 08/03/2013, referred to above, it is observed that there are certain marginal remarks as 'ad interim stay granted' as stated by you. However, these remarks shall not be considered as ad interim stay order granted by the Hon'ble Tribunal."

The Bench was apparently peeved with the contents of the Superintendent's letter for it appeared to the Bench that a copy of their ad interim stay order recorded on the margin of the application was furnished to the Superintendent by the appellant but the Superintendent had refused to acknowledge the same.

Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 40 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Bench required the Superintendent to appear before it on 20/03/2013.

Probably, the AR must have sent a SOS to the officer concerned and asked him to pack his bags and leave office immediately so that he reached the CESTAT at the appointed day and time. After all, as mentioned, it takes 19 hours to reach by train. So, the Superintendent must have probably prayed and prayed, received Best of Luck smses and after undertaking the arduous journey reached Bangalore a day before and appeared before the Bench in his livery at the appointed date and time.

And this is what happened on 20/03/2013 in the CESTAT as noted in the CESTAT Order -

"…The Superintendent, Shri Naga Rajeswara Rao, is present in the Court. He has also produced copies of a communication sent to him by the appellant. These papers include copies of the appellant's letter dt. 08/03/2013 received by the Superintendent on the same day as also copies of Appendix XXVI. On the left-hand side margin of the Appendix, there is a manuscript reading "Ad interim stay granted". The Commissioner (AR) has clarified the factual situation in answer to relevant queries from the Bench.

4. When confronted with the facts stated by the Superintendent and the Commissioner (AR), the counsel for the appellant admits that, instead of any certified copy of the ad interim stay order dt. 07/03/2013, what was supplied to the Superintendent on 08/03/2013 was Appendix XXVI with the words "Ad interim stay granted" scribbled by the appellant on its left-hand side margin. The learned counsel also apologizes on behalf of his client.

5. When the matter was mentioned by the counsel before us on 18/03/2013, the manner in which our ad interim stay order was communicated to the Department was not correctly disclosed. Had it been correctly stated by the counsel for the appellant on the said date, we would not have summoned the Superintendent. The Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Kakinada came all the way to Bangalore and stayed in the city overnight in order to answer our summons. He is present before us in his official uniform and has been introduced to us by the Commissioner (AR). He has been constrained to keep away from his official duties for two days on account of the reprehensible conduct of the appellant. From the submissions made before us, we are satisfied that the Superintendent's presence in the Court today was not warranted in the correct facts and circumstances of this case. It has been occasioned by the misfeasance of the appellant. This apart, as already noted, a material fact was suppressed before us on behalf of the appellant on 18/03/2013. In such circumstances, the appellant has got to pay costs of the respondent. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with the Government under the appropriate head, within seven days from today and report compliance…. The witness is discharged."