ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President: Address for
communication: Secretary General:
R. Chandramouli 240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.) Ravi Malik
Mob. 08939955463 mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com,
Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob. 09868816290
Vice Presidents: P. Parwani, L. L. Singhvi (Central); Anurag Chaudhary, Ravi Joshi
(North); N. Raman, G. Srinath (South); B. K. Sinha, Ashwini Majhi (East);
Rajesh Chaher, J. D. Patil (West) Joint Secretaries: Anand Kishore, J.
S. Iyer (Central); R. K. Solanki, Ashish Vajpeyi (North); M. Nagaraju,
Ajithkumar P. C. (South); P. K. Sen, S. Bhattachariya (East); Jasram Meena, M.
K. Mishra (West) Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasurer: N. R.
Manda Liaison Secretary: A. S. Kundu
Coordinator on Telangana: P. Shravan
Kumar
(Recognised
by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 70/A/16
Dt. 18.05.16
To,
The DG, HRD,
CBEC, New
Delhi.
Sub: Comprehensive Performance
Appraisal.
Sir,
Kindly refer to your communication on the above subject.
2. It is submitted with due regards that the
complaints from the tax payers (rather non-payers) can never be ruled out in
the indirect tax administration because the trade always tends not to pay the
tax. As nobody is desirous of paying the tax, the department has always to
carry a drive every year in the second half to motivate the trade to pay tax.
Indirect tax administration is totally different than the direct tax
administration where the tax is collected easily. Despite of all odds, our
officers are collecting the indirect taxes always above the targets. The
indirect tax collection is always in inverse proportion of trade friendly
atmosphere and liberalisation. The trade friendly atmosphere can be and should
be created only upto a limit. Whenever efforts are made to collect the indirect
taxes, there is always the acute possibility of complaints against the officers
on flimsy grounds by the trade. Thus, the stake holders will never give
positive feedback/appraisal about the officers.
3. Moreover, first we have to look into the problems particularly
regarding infrastructure being faced by the tax officers in the process of tax
collection. We’ll have to improve the pay packages, career prospects, basic
amenities and due facilities (which unfortunately tends toward zero in our
CBEC), if we want to compete and compare with corporate sector. However, no
doubt that the peers including subordinates, supervisor etc. may be proved the
best persons to give the feedback about any person. But the inputs/views of the
tax payers will never be honest in the assessment of any officer due to the tendency of tax-theft by the trade and
industry. If there was no tendency of tax-theft in trade and
industry, the huge audit network would have
never been required. The tendency of tax-theft is the main cause of the creation of
huge audit and anti-evasion network. The tax payers input, thus, can never form
the basis of objective and fair assessment of the officers. Rather, the
officers should be asked to make the assessment of the trade based on the
difficulties and problems being faced by them during the process of tax collection in the liberal and trade friendly approach of the govt. in the time of
today.
4. The trade is always
ready to do anything lawful or unlawful to make profits. They are more than
ready to adopt any tactics for the same. Their single point programme is to
make profit without caring for the fair means or law and rule. So, they will
always give negative assessment for our officers. Since our job includes
deterrent actions in assessing the tax returns, even the best of job done by our officers may be reported adversely by the trade and industry.
5. As a policy, 360
degree review based appraisal may be welcomed.
But even under present 2-tier system, a large number of APAR’s are not
written and/or reviewed. It can very easily be understood what would happen when
reporting and reviews will be required from many sides including the
taxpayers. No need to say that it would increase the chances of incomplete APAR’s manifold.
6. In the
questionnaire part, a number of questions are there needing quantitative or
documentary support. Unless specifications are brought for these questions, the
entire scheme may work even against the
most efficient officers.
7. In view of the above, the CBEC should concentrate
on providing the best pay packages,
career prospects, basic amenities and due facilities to the staffside to create a feeling of
job-satisfaction among them instead of allowing the so called tax payers to
report and review the APAR’s of the workforce of the tax administration. The
feeling of job-satisfaction among workforce of tax administration shall
increase the govt. revenue as well as efficiency of tax administration
manifold.
Thanking
you,
Yours faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF
CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President: Address for communication: Secretary General:
R. Chandramouli 240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.) Ravi Malik
Mob. 08939955463 mail
Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com,
Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob. 09868816290
Vice Presidents: P. Parwani, L. L. Singhvi (Central); Anurag Chaudhary, Ravi Joshi
(North); N. Raman, G. Srinath (South); B. K. Sinha, Ashwini Majhi (East);
Rajesh Chaher, J. D. Patil (West) Joint Secretaries: Anand Kishore, J.
S. Iyer (Central); R. K. Solanki, Ashish Vajpeyi (North); M. Nagaraju,
Ajithkumar P. C. (South); P. K. Sen, S. Bhattachariya (East); Jasram Meena, M.
K. Mishra (West) Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasurer: N. R.
Manda Liaison Secretary: A. S. Kundu
Coordinator on Telangana: P. Shravan
Kumar
(Recognised
by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 80/L/16
Dt. 26.05.16
REMINDER
To,
Sh. Najib Shah,
Chairman, CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Order
dt. 08.12.14 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 19024 of 2014
& M.P. No. 1 of 2014 filed by Sh. R. Chandrasekaran and order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP No. 896/2015 against W.P. No. 11535/2014.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to letter F. No. A-23011/23/2015-Ad.IIA Dt. 26.05.15 of CBEC addressed to
the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai Zone and copy endorsed to the
Pr Chief Controller of Accounts, New Delhi as well as various representations
including Ref. No. 76/L/15 Dt. 23.06.15 and 134/L/15 Dt. 09.11.15 of the
Association requesting for the general implementation of various court orders.
2. It is submitted with due regards
that the legal verdicts are not being implemented in general by the CBEC/Govt.
even after being finalized by the various legal courts whether relating to MACP
upgradation or stepping-up in the case of ACP/MACP upgradation or time scale or
any other issue. The benefit of the verdicts is being granted only to the
applicant forcing other similarly situated officers to adopt the legal recourse
which wastes the time, resources and money not only of the individuals but also
of the Govt. as well as Courts.
3. The Superintendents, who got time
scale after completion of 4 years of service prior to the MACPS coming into
existence (i.e., 01.09.08), have been given benefit of time scale without
offsetting with the MACP upgradation vide subject-mentioned legal verdicts
resulting into the issuance of above mentioned letter F. No. A-23011/23/2015-Ad.IIA Dt. 26.05.15 of CBEC.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil
Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors has held as under:
“Normal rule is that when a
particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing
so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in
service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this
Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should
be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because
other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are
not to be treated differently.”
5. In spite of various such
decisions of Apex Court and various other courts already brought to the kind
knowledge of the administration, the benefit is not being extended to all other
similarly situated employees. If any matter on service issue/policy is
implemented based on the verdict given by the legal court, the Govt. is bound
to give its benefit to all similarly situated employees. No need to say that no
Govt. organization/department/ministry is above the courts and it seems
contemptuous, if the benefit of the court orders is not given to the similarly
situated employees.
6. As per the discriminatory
practice, the benefit of the subject-mentioned legal verdict is not being given
to all equally placed officers forcing the concerned officers to go to the
legal courts. It will not only increase the unwarranted litigations but is also
against the policy of the govt. to minimize the litigations. But it seems that
none in the administration side is worried to implement the govt. policy of
minimum litigations despite of the dismissal of the SLP of the govt. by the
Apex Court on the issue.
7. In view of the above, it is
requested that the benefit of the subject-mentioned court order resulting into
the letter F. No. A-23011/23/2015-Ad.IIA
Dt. 26.05.15 of CBEC may kindly be granted to all similarly situated employees
at an early date without forcing them to go for legal recourse. The time scale
of the Superintendents, who got time scale after completion of 4 years of
service prior to the MACPS coming into existence (i.e., 01.09.08), may kindly
not be offset with the MACP upgradation accordingly.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for
necessary action to:
1) The Revenue Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi.
2) The Expenditure Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi.
3) The DOPT Secretary, North
Block, New Delhi.
(RAVI MALIK)
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President: Address for communication: Secretary General:
R. Chandramouli 240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.) Ravi Malik
Mob. 08939955463 mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com,
Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob. 09868816290
Vice Presidents: P. Parwani, L. L. Singhvi (Central); Anurag Chaudhary, Ravi Joshi
(North); N. Raman, G. Srinath (South); B. K. Sinha, Ashwini Majhi (East);
Rajesh Chaher, J. D. Patil (West) Joint Secretaries: Anand Kishore, J.
S. Iyer (Central); R. K. Solanki, Ashish Vajpeyi (North); M. Nagaraju,
Ajithkumar P. C. (South); P. K. Sen, S. Bhattachariya (East); Jasram Meena, M.
K. Mishra (West) Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasurer: N. R.
Manda Liaison Secretary: A. S. Kundu
Coordinator on Telangana: P. Shravan
Kumar
(Recognised
by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 81/R/16
Dt. 26.05.16
REMINDER
To,
Sh. Najib Shah,
Chairman, CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Retrospective implementation of the
pay scale revision of the Superintendents of Central Excise vs. Superintendents
of NCB.
Sir,
Kindly refer to the earlier representations of the
Association made to the administration on the above issue.
2. It
is again submitted with due regards that the pay scale of the Superintendents
of Narcotics Control Bureau was revised to Rs. 7500-12000/- from Rs.
6500-10500/- w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all
consequential benefits vide U.O. No. 169/1/2005-IC dt. 11.04.05 of the
Department of Expenditure leading to the issuance of Order F. No.
II/2(38)/2004-Estt. dt. 20.04.05 by the Narcotics Control Bureau whereas the
pay scale of the Superintendents of Central Excise was revised to Rs.
7500-12000/- from Rs. 6500-10500/- prospectively w.e.f. 21.04.04, i.e., from
the date of issuance of the order vide O.M. No. 6/37/98-IC dt. 21.04.04.
3. It is also worth to submit that the Superintendents of
Narcotics Control Bureau were granted the retrospective benefit despite of the
fact that their pay scales were revised
even after the revision of pay scales of Superintendents of Central Excise.
The Association has been continuously raising the demand for implementing the
revised pay scale with retrospective effect instead of 21.04.2004 since very
beginning but nothing has been done till date. It is further submitted that the Superintendents in Narcotics
Control Bureau were also granted the non-functional time scale on completion of
4 years of service based on the precedent of the grant of the same to the
Superintendents of Central Excise.
4.
There exists an established parity and relativity between the Superintendents
of NCB and Superintendents of Central Excise as the nature of duties, mode of
recruitment, functions and responsibilities of these posts are the same. The
Superintendents of Central Excise are also working as Superintendents in NCB
since the creation of NCB. The NCB was also a part of CBEC under the Department
of Revenue and remained its part till 18.02.03. The Superintendents of NCB were sharing common seniority with the
Superintendents of Central Excise for promotion to the same post of Group ‘A’
(i.e., Asstt. Commissioner) till 18.02.03. The Allocation of
Business Rules, 1961 were amended vide Notification No. I/22/1/2003-CAB dt.
18.02.03 [S.O. 193(E)] to include the NCB in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Even
after that, NCB is being monitored by the CBEC/Department of Revenue and the
Superintendents of Central Excise are till now performing their duties as
Superintendents of NCB.
5.
The High Power Committee formed by the then Finance Minister also accepted that
the Superintendents of Central Excise and the Superintendents of NCB are at
par. Further, the Sixth Pay Commission had categorically observed vide Para
7.15.20 of its report that the duties & responsibilities attached to these
posts whether in Central Excise or in the Narcotics Control Bureau are similar
and recommended for parity of Inspector of the Central Bureau of Narcotics with
the Inspector of Central Excise.
6. Therefore as per the preceding
paras, the pay scale of Superintendents of Central Excise should have also been
upgraded to Rs. 7500-12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.96 at par with their counterparts in
NCB.
7. Thus, the denial of
retrospective revision of pay scale to the Central Excise Superintendents is
not correct as the grave anomaly has arisen on account of the different dates
of revision prescribed by the Department of Expenditure for different
categories of employees. If the pay scales of the counterparts of NCB were
revised w.e.f. 01.01.96 by the Department of Expenditure, the prospective
revision of pay scale from 21.04.04 for the Superintendents of Central Excise
is gross injustice to them.
8.
In view of the above, it is very much requested to give the retrospective
effect to the enhanced pay scale of the Central Excise Superintendents as
granted to their analogous counterparts in NCB.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for
necessary action to:
1) The Revenue Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi.
2) The Expenditure Secretary,
North Block, New Delhi.
3) The DOPT Secretary, North
Block, New Delhi.
(RAVI
MALIK)
