NFU/NFS vs MACP

 If any friend has letter 10.08.2017 mentioned in it, please mail to ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com or whatsapp to 9868816290. Regards to all 

Adhocism & denial of NFU to Superintendents

 

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL TAX

GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

(Earlier known as All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers)

President:                                             Address for communication:                                      Secretary General:

Kajal Kumar Mandal                         Flat No. 6, SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad                           Harpal Singh

Mob. 9957366172      mail Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com        Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in       Mob. 9717510598

Chief Patron: Ravi Malik Patrons: A. Venkatesh, C. S. Sharma, M. Nagaraju

Vice Presidents: B C Khatik, K D Venkatraman  (Central) Swapan Kr Das, Subrata Adhikary (East) Ashish Vajpayi, B B Sharma (North) G Srinivas Reddy, G Ananda Sukumar (South) Siddhraj Parmar, Vimal Kishore Soni (West) Joint Secretaries: Manoj Kumar, T J Manojumon (Central) Pradyut Purkayastha, Ashis Maji (East) Rajeev Prakash, Anil Sreedharan (West) Prabhakar Sharma, R B Sahu (North) K Yugandhar Kumar, S M Kosalaya Devi (South); Office Secretary: B C Gupta Treasurer: Manoj Kumar Liaison Secretary: Bhoopesh Organising Secretary: Utkarsh Sharma West Zone Coordinator: R Keny Legal Coordinator: S Sabarwal Joint Organising Secretary: Jayant Dey East Zone Coordinator: Debasish Modak

(Recognised vide F.No.B-12017/17/2022-AD-IV A dt. 14.07.23 of CBIC, Govt. of India)

Ref. No. 06/AIB/M/26                                                                                  Dt. 04.02.26

To,                  

Sh. Vivek Chaturvedi,

Chairman, CBIC,

Kartvaya Bhawan-I, New Delhi.

 

Sub: Denial of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents working under Mumbai CGST Cadre Control Zone.

Sir,

Kindly refer to the letter F.No.A-29014/4/2011-Ad.IIB Dt. 22.02.16 of the CBEC/CBIC regarding treatment of the long-term vacancies in the grade of Superintendent beyond one year as regular posts issued based on DOPT OMs. Kindly also refer to Ref. No. 05/AIB/N/26 Dt. 03.02.26 of the Association (copy enclosed).

2. It is worth to submit with due regards that ad-hocism was prevalent in the CBIC/CBEC for decades at every level of Group ‘A’ IRS officers also but no benefit to them was ever stopped due to this reason. They were given every monetary and career related benefit despite of being worked as ad-hoc because of working on long-term regular posts.

3. But very unfortunately, the benefit of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents after completion of four years regular service on long-term regular posts is being denied treating them wrongly as ad-hoc by Pay & Accounts Office. More surprisingly, the benefit is being denied to these officers despite of being worked against these long-term regular posts of Superintendent even continuously for more than 11 years. It is not understood whether the persons working in Pay & Accounts Offices are above the CBIC as they don’t hesitate even a little to dishonour the approvals given by the HODs.  

4. The PAOs deny the grant of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents without any valid reason or without mentioning any relevant provision/rule/law prescribed in Civil Accounts Manual. It is not understood what vested/official/legal interest they have behind such denial. The issue of granting NFU/NFS to the eligible officers is to be decided by the competent authority only. The PAO is not competent authority and has no role to play in this regard. The work of the PAO is only to check the correctness of the amount after being approved/decided by the competent authority.

5. Needless to mention that the concerned Zonal Cadre Controlling Principal Chief Commissioner has already approved the grant of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents of the zone vide letter F.No. II/39(CON)Misc-05/2023/222 Dt. 29.10.25 addressing to all concerned. No need to say that our Principal Chief Commissioner is the duly competent authority in this matter. The objection put to the matter by the PAOs to the approval of Cadre Controlling Principal Chief Commissioner is a very serious matter and totally unjustified. It requires to be dealt with seriously for the sake of giving justice to the affected Superintendents.

6. Not only the grant of NFU/NFS after 4 years of service against long-term regular posts but ad-hoc promotions to the regular posts of Superintendent are also required to be regularized at an early date.

7. In view of above, it is requested to kindly initiate the due steps considering the matter as immediate-

(i) to give the benefit of NFU/NFS to all ad-hoc Superintendents who have already worked continuously for four years against regular posts of Superintendent.

(ii) to regularize all ad-hoc Superintendents working against regular posts of Superintendent.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

Encl: As above (1)                                                                                                                         

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.

Copy with the request for necessary action to:

(1)   The Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai Zone.

(2)   The Chief Commissioner, CGST, Nagpur Zone.

NFU/NFS

 

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL TAX

GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

(Earlier known as All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers)

President:                                             Address for communication:                                      Secretary General:

Kajal Kumar Mandal                         Flat No. 6, SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad                           Harpal Singh

Mob. 9957366172      mail Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com        Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in       Mob. 9717510598

Chief Patron: Ravi Malik Patrons: A. Venkatesh, C. S. Sharma, M. Nagaraju

Vice Presidents: B C Khatik, K D Venkatraman  (Central) Swapan Kr Das, Subrata Adhikary (East) Ashish Vajpayi, B B Sharma (North) G Srinivas Reddy, G Ananda Sukumar (South) Siddhraj Parmar, Vimal Kishore Soni (West) Joint Secretaries: Manoj Kumar, T J Manojumon (Central) Pradyut Purkayastha, Ashis Maji (East) Rajeev Prakash, Anil Sreedharan (West) Prabhakar Sharma, R B Sahu (North) K Yugandhar Kumar, S M Kosalaya Devi (South); Office Secretary: B C Gupta Treasurer: Manoj Kumar Liaison Secretary: Bhoopesh Organising Secretary: Utkarsh Sharma West Zone Coordinator: R Keny Legal Coordinator: S Sabarwal Joint Organising Secretary: Jayant Dey East Zone Coordinator: Debasish Modak

(Recognised vide F.No.B-12017/17/2022-AD-IV A dt. 14.07.23 of CBIC, Govt. of India)

Ref. No. 05/AIB/N/26                                                                       Dt. 03.02.26

To,                  

Sh. Vivek Chaturvedi,

Chairman, CBIC,

Kartvaya Bhawan-I, New Delhi.

 

Sub: Denial of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents of Nasik Commissionerate.

Sir,

Kindly refer to the letter F.No.A-29014/4/2011-Ad.IIB Dt. 22.02.16 of the CBEC/CBIC regarding treatment of the long-term vacancies in the grade of Superintendent beyond one year as regular based on DOPT OMs.

2. It is worth to submit further with due regards that the PAO, Nasik has objected the grant of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents after completing four years regular service on long-term posts treating them wrongly as ad-hoc. It is also worth to mention that the CBIC has already granted NFSG to Group ‘A’ IRS officers promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner on ad-hoc basis by promoting them as Additional Commissioner.

3. The issue of granting NFU/NFS to the eligible officers is to be decided by the competent authority only. The PAO is not competent authority and has no role to play in this regard. The work of the PAO is only to check the magnitude of the amount after being approved/decided by the competent authority.

4. It is also worth to mention that the concerned zonal Principal Commissioner has already approved the grant of NFU/NFS to the Superintendents of the zone vide letter F.No. II/39(CON)Misc-05/2023/222 Dt. 29.10.25 addressing to all concerned. No need to say that our Principal Commissioner, being HOD, is the competent authority in this matter to give due treatment to the long-term posts of Superintendent. The objection put to the matter by the PAO after approval of HOD is a very serious matter and totally unjustified

5. In view of above, it is requested to kindly give a serious thought to the matter and give justice to the affected Superintendents at an early date.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                       

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.

Brief Bulletin

 1. Cadre Restructuring of CBIC: Proposal was sent to DOPT by CBIC without consulting the Associations. However, the viewpoints of non-recognised IRS Association were always taken into consideration even unofficially. Proposal was tried by them to be sent to the Department of Expenditure through DOPT and IFD in their interest but was not agreed by IFD and returned back.

2. DPC for the year 2026 for the post of Asstt. Commissioner: The fate of the DPC will depend on Ashok Kumar case and also providing of the Seniority List of the Superintendents by Vadodara Zone to prepare the All India Seniority List of the Superintendents beyond 2013. The matter is being pursued. Number of posts for DPC is expected 500+ for the year 2026.

3. In rem implementation of the Supreme Court order for pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996: The matter got recommended to the Department of Expenditure again mentioning the expenditure involved in it with due approval by the Member (P&A). The matter is being pursued further.

4. Placement of newly promoted Asstt. Commissioners: Proposal was got moved but not agreed for the want of regular placement committee. Regular placement committee will be constituted only after joining by new members and allocation of regular charge to new Member (P&A). New members are expected to be promoted in 3rd or 4th week of February. So, the placement of newly promoted Asstt. Commissioners is expected only after that. The matter is being pursued.

5. Missed promotions to the post of Asstt. Commissioner: The representations for missed promotions are being considered and may take the month of February for finalisation. The matter is being pursued.

6. All India Seniority List of the Superintendents beyond 2013: It may be issued only after providing the Seniority List of the Superintendents by Vadodara Zone. The matter is being pursued.

JAI HIND. Our Unity is our strength.

Problems being faced in GST

 

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL TAX

GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

(Earlier known as All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers)

President:                                             Address for communication:                                      Secretary General:

Kajal Kumar Mandal                         Flat No. 6, SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad                           Harpal Singh

Mob. 9957366172      mail Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com        Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in       Mob. 9717510598

Chief Patron: Ravi Malik Patrons: A. Venkatesh, C. S. Sharma, M. Nagaraju

Vice Presidents: B C Khatik, K D Venkatraman  (Central) Swapan Kr Das, Subrata Adhikary (East) Ashish Vajpayi, B B Sharma (North) G Srinivas Reddy, G Ananda Sukumar (South) Siddhraj Parmar, Vimal Kishore Soni (West) Joint Secretaries: Manoj Kumar, T J Manojumon (Central) Pradyut Purkayastha, Ashis Maji (East) Rajeev Prakash, Anil Sreedharan (West) Prabhakar Sharma, R B Sahu (North) K Yugandhar Kumar, S M Kosalaya Devi (South); Office Secretary: B C Gupta Treasurer: Manoj Kumar Liaison Secretary: Bhoopesh Organising Secretary: Utkarsh Sharma West Zone Coordinator: R Keny Legal Coordinator: S Sabarwal Joint Organising Secretary: Jayant Dey East Zone Coordinator: Debasish Modak

(Recognised vide F.No.B-12017/17/2022-AD-IV A dt. 14.07.23 of CBIC, Govt. of India)

Ref. No. 61/AIB/G/25                                                                       Dt. 28.10.25

To,

The Secretary,

Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,

North Block, New Delhi.

   Sub: Problems being faced at Superintendent level while enforcing GST Law -reg.

Sir,

               As your goodself knows, it is submitted with due regards that the Nation witnessed the advent of GST on 1^st July, 2017 which changed the face of the tax regime. Over the years, we also witnessed several progresses & improvements in Tax structure, lucidity in implementation, ‘Samvaad’ with Taxpayers, shifting to BO portal and the list goes on. But there are certain legal & administrative issues are being faced by the Superintendents in day-to-day working. Some issues have already been raised in past, but it met a wall with no change in approach of CBIC administrative brass. The existing approach has created a lot of trouble for taxpayers as well as for staff. The problems that came to the knowledge of the Association are narrated below-

1.                    Creation of cells without the authority of law- There are two cells, namely “Central Processing Cell” commonly known as CPC, and the second is “Post Audit”, which have been created without the authority of Law. The impact is that the officers posted in these cells do not have any authority under the GST Law. Therefore, they are bound to follow illegal orders. The problem is described as under-

(I)          Central Processing Cell: This cell has been created for the new registration work. As per the GST Law, the jurisdictional officer is the proper officer for all work related to GST registration, right from the grant of registration to the cancellation of registration. This is being implemented in State GST, but in CBIC, there is the CPC cell where all applications for new registration are being dealt. In this process, some legal issues are involved -

(i)     that the CPC cell has been created without the authority of law, as there is no provision under the CGST Act,2017, and rules framed thereunder. Moreover, no notification has been issued in this regard.

(ii)   the legal validity of the existence of more than one proper officer in a jurisdiction.

(iii)  that the officers of the rank of Superintendent posted in the CPC are not proper officers as they are not the jurisdictional officer.

(iv) that the processing/approval/denial of an application for new registration by the Superintendents posted at CPC is without the authority of Law.

(v)  As the CPC has been created on the directions of CBIC, the lower officers are bound to follow illegal orders.

(II)         Post Audit cell – This branch/cell has been created for Post Audit of Refund orders (Refer Instruction No. 3/22-GST dated 14.06.2022). As there is no separate provision of “Post audit” of refund orders RFD-06 under the GST law, the creation of this branch/cell is totally without the authority of law. There are provisions under Section 107 of the CGST Act,2017, to review the orders passed by the proper officer. The process of review is meant for cross-checking the legality or propriety of the said decision/orders. No legal provisions are in the GST law, but CBIC has created the Post Audit cell in contravention of legal provisions. In contrary to administrative and judicial norms, post audit of refund claims is being performed by the officers below or equal to the rank of Refund sanctioning officer. Vide said instruction, while creating the post audit cell, it was specifically narrated that post audit and review shall be conducted through the portal and till the functionality has not developed, it would be through online mode.  Now, the functionality of review is available on BO [Refer Advisory No. 02/2024 dated 03-07-2024 by the Office of the ADG (System & Data Management) Bengaluru], but it is also not being used in most of the GST formations for the reason best known to the authorities concerned whereas vide said advisory it was specifically emphasized that “All orders (DRC-07 & RFD-06) issued on are after 01-06-2024 will be reviewed in the BO by the officers assigned the Internal Review Cell (IRC) role. Moreover, non-deployment of the post audit functionality of GST BO is testimony of the fact that the existence of the said post audit cell has no authority under the GST law.

2.                    Illegal orders passed by the First Appellate Authorities- The First Appellate Authorities are engaged in the act of remanding back the cases to the adjudicating authority, whereas, as per provisions under the GST law, the power to remand back the case to the adjudicating authority has not been given to the 1^st Appellate Authority. All the orders issued by 1^st Appellate Authorities, wherein the case is remanded back to the Original Adjudicating authority, violate the provisions of the CGST Act,2017 and have been issued beyond legal authority enshrined under the Act, ibid.

3.                    Senior officer avoids working on the BO/ GST Portal-

(i)           The information available on the BO portal can be viewed by any tax officer, but the Senior Officer mostly desires the information from the Range Superintendent in the e-office or otherwise. 

(ii)         The information which are available on the BO/GST portal and viewed at the Commissionerate /CCO level is being called from the lower formations in the name of reports.

(iii)        As per instruction no. 4/2023, CBIC has clarified that DRC-01 & DRC-07 have to be served to the taxpayer electronically through the BO Portal by the proper officer, but in many cases, Senior Officers avoid issuing DRC-01 notices & DRC-07 orders through the portal, and the Range Superintendents are being asked telephonically to issue the DRC-01/DRC-07. Some officers give such orders on the e-office. There are instances on records, wherein SCN/OIOs have been issued by the Senior Officers, but the DRC-01/DRC-07 have not been uploaded by them themselves, rather the same got uploaded from the Range Superintendent ID. Such DRC 01/ DRC 07 are beyond the competency of the Superintendent, being not the proper officer of such cases. In some cases, through endorsements, the Range Superintendents are being directed to upload DRC-01. In such cases, due to delays in the delivery to the Range formation, the uploading of DRC-01 may be delayed and the demand/SCN may be infructuous. It clearly establishes that senior officers have created pressure on subordinates to issue/upload DRC-01 /DRC-07 through Range Superintendent IDs.

4.                    “Proper jurisdiction” and “Proper officer” are meaningless for CBIC: Proper jurisdiction and Proper officer are essential in enforcing any law. Any act performed by a non-jurisdictional officer or an improper officer is not sustainable in the eyes of the law, but under CBIC, these words have lost their meaning. Some cases have come to notice where show-cause notices have been issued in physical form to taxpayers situated outside the state without serving DRC-01. Subsequently, adjudication orders have been passed and sent to the jurisdictional Range for creating DRC-07. There are instances in which Senior Officers posted in other states issued orders confirming the demand/interest/penalty on taxpayers who are registered in the UP, and neither DRC-01 nor DRC-07 was issued to the taxpayers through the portal by the Proper Officer; rather copy of the orders passed has been sent to the jurisdictional tax officer in UP to create DRC-07. Now the grim situation has arisen for the taxpayer, who wishes to file an appeal against such orders before the 1^st appellate authority under the jurisdiction of said taxpayer or the Ist Appellate Authority having jurisdiction over the said Senior Officer who has passed said orders. Besides the above, there are numerous cases where SCN have been issued by two tax officers, 1^st who has physically signed the notice and the second is the jurisdictional officer who digitally signed the DRC-01 on the portal. A similar position lies with the adjudication orders. In some cases, the DGGI forwards the multi locational SCN for adjudication to Range Superintendents, who are neither the common adjudicating authorities nor the proper officer to adjudicate the case of a taxpayer outside their jurisdiction. Therefore, the legal question arises-

(i)      Who is a proper officer?  1^st officer who has signed physically or the 2^nd officer who signed digitally?

(ii)     Whether such show cause notices or adjudication orders signed by two tax officers are allowed in the GST law?

(iii)    Whether such show cause notices or adjudication orders signed by two tax officers are sustainable in the court of law?

5.                    Assigning the work without assigning a role on the BO/GST Portal- All the work related to irregularities pointed out by DGARM, Audit, CAG, State GST, and DGGI is being forwarded to the Range for compliance, but the role of “Enforcement Officer” has not been given at the Range Level. It is pertinent to mention that the functionality to initiate an enquiry is available only under the “Enforcement Officer” Role in BO, and Multiple chains of communication are possible on a single thread between the tax officer and the taxpayer, but the Superintendent posted at the Range level feels helpless as the said role has not been assigned to them on the BO portal whereas there is no restriction in the BO portal to assign the role of enforcement officer to the Range Superintendent. In such a situation, the Superintendent is bound to initiate the enquiry in the old manual/physical method out of the BO portal, which is contrary to the government policy of least interaction with the taxpayer.

6.                    Paralysing the work efficiency of the Range Superintendent- Besides the above, the various roles/ tools that are being designed/developed for ease of tax officers have not been provided at the Range level. One of them is “GST Prime” which is a tool developed by the NIC as an analytical tool designed especially for GST officials. The tool built by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) aims at empowering tax officials to analyse and monitor all tax collections and compliance measures prevalent in their jurisdiction, but this tool has not been provided at the Range level. It is very surprising in State/UT GST, this tool has been provided to all tax officers for ease of their work, but in the CBIC, this has not been provided at the Range Level, even after regular requests made by the officers to their Supervisory officer and/or with respective nodal officers of GST Prime. Similar situation is also with “BIFA”, which is being kept in a very restrictive manner with a very few senior officers.

7.                    Irrational distribution of work- Senior officers are not worried to rationalised the work distribution. The lowest formation is Range, and at present, maximum ranges have 2000 to 20000 taxpayers, whereas in SGST rational number of taxpayers exists in their Khand/Sector with multiple tax assessing officers (DC/AC/CTO) with supporting staff, steno/clerks/DEO. The executive officer to taxpayer ratio is adverse in CBIC in comparison with the State GST formations, hampering the work in qualitative and quantitative terms. In reality, one superintendent cannot open all the returns filed by the taxpayers in one year. The question of revenue analysis & monitoring at the range level is meaningless.  Therefore, it is requested to issue suitable directions to reorganise the Ranges immediately. Priority should be for proper staffing at Range Level, but it has been observed that in Executive Commissionerates, excess officers are posted for Anti-Evasion work and Ranges are being administered through additional charges to the Superintendents as well as Inspectors. The Maximum Limit of taxpayers in a Range formation should be fixed. Accordingly, the number of ranges should be enhanced, and the sanctioned strength of the Superintendents/Inspectors manning the Ranges should be revised on practical and realistic terms.

8.                    No assistance to the Superintendent-          It is also very surprising that there is a functionality “Assign to Assistant” in the BO but role of assistant has not been assigned to any STA/TA. Even no STA/TA have ever been posted in the range to assist the Superintendent. Further, the Inspectors posted in the ranges are proper officer only for PV and accordingly no role has been assigned in BO except for the PV report. This has resulted that all the work assigned to the Ranges has to be completed by the superintendent himself without any assistance. This has resulted Superintendents are struggling very hard to cope up with the pressure, humiliation & several other ill effects. This shows that Range Superintendents are specifically being targeted and kept overburdened by not assigning/ not making available supporting staff for the reasons best known to the higher authorities whereas no officer above the Superintendent/ Range Superintendent is there, who does their work without the help of an assistant or supporting staff.  Why is it so, and why such a type of discrimination is with the Superintendent/ Range Superintendent, should be a point of concern for the CBIC top authorities, but so far, nothing appears to have been done for reasons not known to this Association.

9.                    Entire Scrutiny/assessment work entrusted only upon Superintendent- The entire work of scrutiny/assessment has been entrusted upon Range Superintendent either by declaring them as Proper officer or through delegation/assigning the work and no supporting staff like clerks/DEO etc. have been provided to them whereas in State GST, 4 level officers Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner/CTO or STO have been appointed as proper officer for assessment & adjudication within their monetary limit with the help of sufficient number of 7-8 supporting staff besides stenos and clerk/DEO, peon etc. Therefore, it is requested to distribute the Scrutiny/ assessment work among the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent and Inspector according to monetary limits based on the turnover of the taxpayer.

10.                Misuse of position-  

(i)           In CBIC, Officers of the rank of ADC/JC/DC/AC have been kept away from the work of scrutiny/assessment, but these officers have been designated as proper officers for issuance of notices under Section 73/74. Now a mute question arises that how these tax officers, without being involved in the process of Scrutiny/Assessment, determine the short payment/non-payment/wrong availment of ITC, etc., for the issuance of notices. In actuality, Senior officers neither determine any short payment/non-payment/wrong availment of ITC nor perform other work on their wisdom. They ask the superintendents to complete the work, prepare the notice, orders, etc. and submit them in the e-office from where they easily download a copy of the notice, order and put their signatures on SCN/order before issuance from the GST Portal. These activities are verifiable from the e-office files.

(ii)         Further, the postings of Superintendents in the Adjudication Branch, Review Branch, and Commissioner (Appeals) show that Senior officers are not performing their quasi-judicial functions/ work allocated to them under the GST Law. The said postings are only for preparing orders/appeals and submitting them in the e-office and/or in physical form, from where they easily download the same and put their signatures and/or sign on the physical file before issuance from the GST Portal. These activities leave a question whether the Superintendent, who is also an independent proper officer for scrutiny & adjudication work within prescribed monetary limits, can be treated or appointed as an “Assistant” of another senior officer who is an independent proper officer for performing quasi-judicial work under the GST Law.

(iii)        In the Range formations, it is regular practice to ask comments in respect of the orders in the original passed by the Assistant Commissioners/Joint Commissioners/Additional Commissioners. How can a junior officer give an impartial comment on the orders passed by the senior officers, and under what authority is it being sought from the Range Superintendents only.

(iv)         In case of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioners/Joint Commissioners/Additional Commissioners, in respect of the appeals of the party/taxpayer, the appeal office asks for comments from the Range formation and directs for personal appearance of Range Officer’s. The question arises here, why are the concerned adjudicating authorities not being asked for comments, and the personal appearance, rather this work also being imposed upon the Range Superintendent.

(v)          It has been observed that in the case of Appeal Commissionerates, the copies of appeals and even letters for personal hearing are being sent to the Range formation for services, whereas the Appeals Commissionerates have proper infrastructure for that. The online module/method for the service of such communication should be made.

(vi)         In respect of any instructions sought by the Standing Counsel for Appeal matters, comments of the Range Officer/Superintendent are being asked for despite having the post of Superintendent/ Assistant Commissioner (Legal) at the Commissionerate level.

In view of the above, it is requested to kindly review the functioning of the field formations of the CBIC and look into the issues raised herein above. It is very humbly submitted that workload and accountability of the Superintendent of the CBIC should be revisited and proper workload at all levels of officers in CBIC should be distributed, so that functional requirement of the officers at all levels may be as per the GST law, which shall make our esteemed organisation effective, efficient and responsive for the delivery of services to the taxpayer with maximising the revenue collection. 

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                       

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.

Copy with the request for necessary action to :-

1. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi.

2. The Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, CGST Zone AHMEDABAD/ BENGALURU/ BHOPAL/ BHUBANESWAR/ CHANDIGARH/ CHENNAI/ DELHI/ GUWAHATI/ HYDERABAD/ JAIPUR/ KOLKATA/ LUCKNOW/ MEERUT/ MUMBAI/ NAGPUR/ PANCHKULA/ PUNE/ RANCHI/ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/ VADODARA/ VISAKHAPATNAM - AMARAVATHI

DPC for the post of AC

 

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL TAX

GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

(Earlier known as All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers)

President:                                             Address for communication:                                      Secretary General:

Kajal Kumar Mandal                         Flat No. 6, SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad                           Harpal Singh

Mob. 9957366172      mail Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com        Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in       Mob. 9717510598

Chief Patron: Ravi Malik Patrons: A. Venkatesh, C. S. Sharma, M. Nagaraju

Vice Presidents: B C Khatik, K D Venkatraman  (Central) Swapan Kr Das, Subrata Adhikary (East) Ashish Vajpayi, B B Sharma (North) G Srinivas Reddy, G Ananda Sukumar (South) Siddhraj Parmar, Vimal Kishore Soni (West) Joint Secretaries: Manoj Kumar, T J Manojumon (Central) Pradyut Purkayastha, Ashis Maji (East) Rajeev Prakash, Anil Sreedharan (West) Prabhakar Sharma, R B Sahu (North) K Yugandhar Kumar, S M Kosalaya Devi (South); Office Secretary: B C Gupta Treasurer: Manoj Kumar Liaison Secretary: Bhoopesh Organising Secretary: Utkarsh Sharma West Zone Coordinator: R Keny Legal Coordinator: S Sabarwal Joint Organising Secretary: Jayant Dey East Zone Coordinator: Debasish Modak

(Recognised vide F.No.B-12017/17/2022-AD-IV A dt. 14.07.23 of CBIC, Govt. of India)

Ref. No. 57/AIB/D/25                                                                       Dt. 19.09.25

                                                                                                            REMINDER

To,
The Chairman

CBIC, North Block,

New Delhi.

Sub: DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner.

Sir,

Kindly refer to the earlier representations including Ref. No. 55/AIB/D/25 Dt. 17.09.25 of the Association.

2. It is further submitted with due regards that not only the DPCs for the vacancy years 2024 & 2025 have been delayed but also the DPC for the vacancy year 2026 is also already due. The DOPT OM No. 22011/4/2013-Estt(D) Dt. 08.05.17 on the subject of Model Calendar for conducting DPCs is enclosed herewith for your kind reference.

3. Your kind attention is again invited also to the DOPT OM No. 28036/8/87-ESTT. (D) Dt. 30.03.88 which clearly stipulates that ad-hoc promotions can be affected, even if there exists any court injunction or seniority dispute.

3. It is also reiterated that the pendency of a legal case or legal challenge or legal stay involving one feeder stream does not and should not affect the filling of vacancies for another stream. It has also already happened at least twice in the past.

4. In view of above, there seems no hindrance to conduct the DPC to promote retiring Superintendents of Central Excise/CGST.

5. It is, therefore, requested to kindly conduct the DPC at the earliest taking into consideration all vacancies for the vacancy years 2024, 2025 & 2026 as our officers are forced to retire regularly without promotion with no fault on their part for the want of timely DPC.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Encl: As above.                                                                                                                             

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.

Copy with the request for necessary action to:

The Revenue Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.