Parliament passed the Customs and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal Act in 1986 (CERAT). This Act was passed under Article 323B of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that the appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by Tribunals of any disputes, complaints or offences with regard to all or any of the matter specified in clause (2) of that Article with respect to which such Legislature has power to make laws. One of the matters enumerated in this clause is the levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax including any matter incidental to that.
The basic differences between this Tribunal and Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal (CEGAT) are:
CERAT is set up under constitutional provisions while the CEGAT is a statutory body created under the respective Acts.
The President of CERAT has to be a judge of the High Court or someone who has held the office of the judicial member or technical member for at least two years. These are not the conditions for the appointment of the President and the members of CEGAT. The President and members of CERAT are appointed by the President of India but on the recommendation of the selection committee of which the Chairman is nominated by the Chief Justice of India and other members are nominated by the Central Government. The chairman has either to be a judge of the High Court or one who has been a judge or has (for at least two years) held the office of the judicial and technical member. The judicial member has to be one who is or has been a judge of the High Court or member of the legal service Grade I with at least five years' service.
Similarly, the technical member is one who has been a member of the Indian Customs and Excise Service for a period of 30 years and has held, during this period, the post of collector or a higher post for at least 10 years.
The term of the President is for three years or up to 65 years of age, whichever is earlier. The President or the member can't be removed from service except by the President of India on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after an enquiry made by the Judge of the Supreme Court. The President and members are not eligible after retirement for any appointment except that the members can become President. They can't also appear before CERAT or CEGAT after retirement.
The jurisdiction of CERAT is virtually the same as that of CEGAT except that it had no jurisdiction under the Gold Control Act which has now been replaced.
The procedure to be followed in filing appeals before CERAT is virtually the same as that for CEGAT. However, the detailed procedure in this regard has not been prescribed as so far CERAT has not come into force despite the fact that the Act was passed in 1986.
Like the High Court, CERAT has the power to commit for contempt of court. It is also not bound by the procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Code, except for certain matters in which it has powers of the court under the Civil Procedure Code. CERAT has also powers to grant stay.
The most important difference between CEGAT and CERAT is that before CERAT, only legal practitioners can appear from both sides while before CEGAT even permanent employees of the appellant and consultants can appear.
CERAT has been mainly set up to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. Normally, in courts, once the appellants have got a stay they forget about pursuing the case. Such cases remain pending before the High Courts for long period of time because of which government money gets blocked. It is hoped that the setting up of this Tribunal will improve things as there will be a bar on going to the High Court. Appeals from the order of CERAT lie only to the Supreme Court.
The basic differences between this Tribunal and Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal (CEGAT) are:
CERAT is set up under constitutional provisions while the CEGAT is a statutory body created under the respective Acts.
The President of CERAT has to be a judge of the High Court or someone who has held the office of the judicial member or technical member for at least two years. These are not the conditions for the appointment of the President and the members of CEGAT. The President and members of CERAT are appointed by the President of India but on the recommendation of the selection committee of which the Chairman is nominated by the Chief Justice of India and other members are nominated by the Central Government. The chairman has either to be a judge of the High Court or one who has been a judge or has (for at least two years) held the office of the judicial and technical member. The judicial member has to be one who is or has been a judge of the High Court or member of the legal service Grade I with at least five years' service.
Similarly, the technical member is one who has been a member of the Indian Customs and Excise Service for a period of 30 years and has held, during this period, the post of collector or a higher post for at least 10 years.
The term of the President is for three years or up to 65 years of age, whichever is earlier. The President or the member can't be removed from service except by the President of India on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after an enquiry made by the Judge of the Supreme Court. The President and members are not eligible after retirement for any appointment except that the members can become President. They can't also appear before CERAT or CEGAT after retirement.
The jurisdiction of CERAT is virtually the same as that of CEGAT except that it had no jurisdiction under the Gold Control Act which has now been replaced.
The procedure to be followed in filing appeals before CERAT is virtually the same as that for CEGAT. However, the detailed procedure in this regard has not been prescribed as so far CERAT has not come into force despite the fact that the Act was passed in 1986.
Like the High Court, CERAT has the power to commit for contempt of court. It is also not bound by the procedure laid down by the Civil Procedure Code, except for certain matters in which it has powers of the court under the Civil Procedure Code. CERAT has also powers to grant stay.
The most important difference between CEGAT and CERAT is that before CERAT, only legal practitioners can appear from both sides while before CEGAT even permanent employees of the appellant and consultants can appear.
CERAT has been mainly set up to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. Normally, in courts, once the appellants have got a stay they forget about pursuing the case. Such cases remain pending before the High Courts for long period of time because of which government money gets blocked. It is hoped that the setting up of this Tribunal will improve things as there will be a bar on going to the High Court. Appeals from the order of CERAT lie only to the Supreme Court.
0 comments: