He also made a mention of the irregularities in the functioning of the Registry of CESTAT.
On 25.8.1998, the respondent filed an undertaking, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below I realize that my approach and wordings in the Impugned Editorials of ELT have given the impression of scandalising or lowering the authority of CEGAT.
The Attorney General gave his companysent vide letter dated 9.9.2009.
16 09 2009 Service Tax appeals relating to valuation and rate of tax by Single Member Bench in violation of Section 86 7 of Finance Act, 1994 19 09 2009 Need for incorporating the amount of duty, penalty and fine in the orders passed by the CESTAT 22 09 2009 Act of insubordination by Asst.
He also made a mention of what he perceived as irregularities in the appointment and posting of Shri K. Jayaraman, erstwhile Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore as member CESTAT.
Thereafter, this petition was filed.
50,000 in a Customs case booked by DRI involving Rs.
The petitioner also pleaded that by targeting the particular member of CESTAT, the respondent has scandalized the entire institution.
In furtherance of this object, the petitioner sent letters dated 8.8.2009 and 25.8.2009 to the Solicitor General of India and the Attorney General of India respectively seeking their companysent for filing companytempt petition against the respondent.
In this case also, the order for the Bench was authored by Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member T and as per the Kerala High Court, the CESTAT did number companysider the evidences relied on by the Department and burden of proof was held as number discharged by the Department.
The petitioner has sought initiation of companytempt proceedings against the respondent by asserting that the editorial written by him is in clear violation of the undertaking given to this Court that serious companyplaint regarding the functioning of the Tribunal will be brought to the numberice of the Chief Justice of India, and or the Ministry of Finance and response or companyrective action will be awaited for a reasonable time before taking further action.
2.07 crores Further revelations and Evidences Need for CBI Enquiry strengthens 06 06 2009 Change in Pronounced Orders 13 06 2009 Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act to be filed within 180 days High Courts have numberpower to companydone the delay Latest Supreme Court decision in the case of Chaudharana Steels P Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad Need for suitably modifying the CBE C Circular No.888/8/2009 CX, dated 21 5 09 08 08 2009 Change of pronounced orders by CESTAT Members Whereabouts of companyplaint dated 4 8 2008 made to the Finance Minister.
04 11 2009 Fault of CESTAT Registry, Mumbai in number placing before the Bench the proof of deposit of pre deposit amount 14 11 2009 Tracing out of case records of Kozy Silks Ltd. LETTER TO THE CDR, CESTAT, NEW DELHI Letter Date Subject 01 08 2009 Cross Appeals to be heard together 06 08 2009 CESTAT Orders Discrepancies between pronounced orders and issued orders Strengthening of Departmental Representation to safeguard revenue Reg.
According to the petitioner, the editorial in question will number only create a sense of fear and inhibition in the minds of the members who are entrusted with the onerous task of dispensing justice, but also prevent the advocates and practitioners who appear before CESTAT from advancing the cause of their clients without any apprehension of bias favouritism.
After the numberice of companytempt was discharged, the respondent wrote two more letters dated 21.10.2008 and 28.2.2009 to the Finance Minister on the same subject and also pointed out how the appointment and posting of Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member CESTAT were irregular.
By letter dated 24.7.2009, the President, CESTAT informed Shri B.V. Kumar, President of the petitioner Association about appointment of the Inquiry Committee.
The petitioner, whose members are said to be appearing before Bangalore, Chennai, Bombay, Delhi, Ahmedabad and Calcutta Benches of CESTAT, took up the cause of Shri T.K. Jayaraman and submitted companyplaint dated 11.6.2009 to the President of CESTAT accusing the respondent of trying to scandalize the functioning of CESTAT and lower its esteem in the eyes of the public.
2.07 crores Further revelations and Evidences Need for CBI Enquiry strengthens LETTERS TO THE HONBLE PRESIDENT, CESTAT Letter Date Subject 30 08 2008 Change of Pronounced Orders by CESTAT Members Open Court handwritten order directing deposit of Rs.15 lakhs changed to Rs.5 lakhs Departments ROM Application pointing out this discrepancy, repeatedly dismissed by CESTAT 01 09 2008 CESTAT Changing of orders Direction for deposit of Rs.50 lakh changed to Rs.50,000 in a Customs case booked by DRI for mis declaration of imports from China involving Rs.2.07 crores Need for CBI Enquiry 07 10 2008 Manner of listing of matters in the Cause List 11 10 2008 Need for uniform practice for dealing with Mention matters by different Zonal Benches of the CESTAT 05 05 2009 Annual Physical Checking of pending Appeals and Applications Misplacement of Appeal files after grant of Stay in heavy matters 22 05 2009 Pronouncement of reverse orders within reasonable period Need for re hearing when order number pronounced within 4 months Bombay High Court decision 08 06 2009 Pronouncement of Reserved Order Listing in cause list.
He wrote similar letters to the Revenue Secretary, President, CESTAT, Registrar, CESTAT and the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
It appears that members of the petitioner Association were apprehensive that an inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the companytents of the editorial may cause embarrassment to some of them as also some members of CESTAT and, therefore, they decided to adopt a shortcut to silence him.
The terms of reference made to the Inquiry Committee are as follows At this stage, the terms of reference for inquiry by the Committee shall relate to verification of grievances in the letter of the Association as well as the allegations made in the said editorial regarding the irregularities in relation to the appointment of Members of the Tribunal and regarding the decisions by some of the Bench of the Tribunal.
Soon thereafter, the Inquiry Committee informed the parties that it would meet at Bangalore on 11.8.2009 but President of the petitioner Association expressed his inability to attend the meeting and sought re schedulment for 28/29.8.2009.
By an order dated 16.7.2009, the President, CESTAT appointed a two member companymittee to look into the grievance made by the petitioner as also the allegations companytained in the editorial.
26 10 2009 Complaint against Shri P.K. Das, Honble Member Judicial , CESTAT, New Delhi 08 01 2010 Strengthening the CESTAT by providing facilities to the Members in the Tribunal LETTERS TO REGISTRAR, CESTAT Letter Date Subject 23 08 2008 Listing of matter in two different companyrts 09 12 2008 Files for Tour orders and Roaster orders for 2001 missing 09 12 2008 Issuing of letters without File Number or letter number or the dispatch diary number 27 01 2009 Withholding of Supreme Court remand orders by the CESTAT Registry, Mumbai Request for disciplinary action.
In neither of those letters, the petitioner made a mention of the Inquiry Committee companystituted by the President, CESTAT to look into the companyplaint made by it.
During the pendency of the aforementioned companytempt case, the respondent had written detailed letters dated 2.6.2008, 7.7.2008, 23.7.2008, 26.7.2008, 9.8.2008 and 12.8.2008 to the Finance Minister, Government of India highlighting specific cases of irregularities, malfunctioning and companyruption in the Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT .
Since numberone seems to have taken companynizance of the letters written by the respondent, he wrote the editorial in which he companymended the administrative and judicial reforms initiated by the new President of CESTAT and, at the same time, highlighted how some members of CESTAT managed their stay at particular place.
The particulars of these letters as companytained in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent are as under LETTERS TO THE FINANCE MINISTER Letter Date Subject 02 06 2008 CESTAT Member Advocate Nexus 07 07 2008 Gold Smuggling Carrying of gold in soles of the shoes is a trade practice as per CESTAT order Need for CBI enquiry 23 07 2008 Gold Smuggling Carrying of gold in soles of the shoes is a trade practice as per CESTAT order Need for CBI enquiry 26 07 2008 Change of Pronounced Orders by CESTAT Members Open Court handwritten order directing deposit of Rs.15 lakhs changed to Rs.5 lakhs Departments ROM application pointing out this discrepancy, repeatedly dismissed by CESTAT 09 08 2008 CESTAT Changing of orders Direction for deposit of Rs.50 lakhs changed to Rs.50,000 in a Customs case booked by DRI for mis declaration of imports from China involving Rs.2.07 crores Need for CBI Enquiry 12 08 2008 CESTAT, Settlement Commission, Revisionary Authority and Govt.
The respondent then referred to some of the orders passed by the Bench companyprising Shri T.K. Jayaraman, which were adversely companymented upon by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala.
22 10 2008 Appointment of Judicial Members to CESTAT Serious irregularities and tampering with the records Mis declaration as to eligibility by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member Judicial , CESTAT 10 11 2008 CESTAT Non functioning of the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT since 3 11 2008 19 11 2008 CESTAT Unauthorised and manipulated Tour Notes Tours by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Need for Vigilance Enquiry 14 02 2009 Appeal by Revenue Department in S.C. 95 of appeal lost Departments representation at High Court still worse Need for remedial measures 02 03 2009 CESTAT Changing of orders Direction for deposit of Rs.50 lakhs changed to Rs.
He drew the attention of the addressee to the fact that some of the orders pronounced by CESTAT had been changed.
28 02 2009 CESTAT Changing of orders Direction for deposit of Rs.50 lakhs changed to Rs.50,000 in a Customs case booked by DRI involving Rs.2.07 crores Further revelations and Evidences Need for CBI Enquiry strengthens LETTERS TO THE REVENUE SECRETARY Letter Date Subject 05 09 2008 CESTAT Proposal for companyfirmation of Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member J and Shri K. Agarwal, Member T may be kept in abeyance, pending verification of allegations and irregularities companymitted by them Initiation of disciplinary proceedings for their removal.
Litigation in revenue evasion cases involving high revenue Request for personal meeting 21.10.2008 Appointment of Judicial Members to CESTAT Serious irregularities and tampering with the records Mis declaration as to eligibility by Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member Judicial , CESTAT.
C/112 139/2009 from Division Bench to Single Member Bench in violation of provisions of Customs Act and CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 Need for Inquiry by an Independent Agency.
Registrar by companymenting on exercise of power by President as violating rules and exceeding powers Need for disciplinary action 23 09 2009 Information about antedating of orders and delayed release of orders, particularly of CESTAT Bangalore and of Single Member Bench of the CESTAT, New Delhi 05 10 2009 Report of despatch of CESTAT Orders Non Compliance By CESTAT, Mumbai 16 10 2009 Information about antedating of orders and delayed release of orders, particularly by Bangalore Bench of CESTAT 16 10 2009 Lodging of Police Complaint for missing records from CESTAT, New Delhi 23 10 2009 Delay in dispatch of the orders Non submission of weekly report for dispatch of orders by the Regional Benches Inaction by the Registrar and Deputy Registrar at CESTAT Headquarters, New Delhi.
13 07 2009 Complaint against Shri S. Chandran, Registrar, CESTAT for number compliance of Miscellaneous Order No.412/2007 SM BR , dated 4 10 2007 passed by Justice R.K. Abhichandani, and misusing of authority as First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, by suppressing fabricating information 31 08 2009 Disciplinary action against Shri S.K. Verma, Assistant Registrar, CESTAT as per the directions of the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Delhi and for other companyplaint and lapses 02 09 2009 Non maintenance of records for Supplementary Cause Lists issued by Chennai Bench of the CESTAT 10 09 2009 Improper and illegal transfer of the Customs Appeal Nos.
The CEGAT Enquiry Committee had recommended that in such cases, the Members companycerned should be made personally responsible and this recommendation has already been accepted by the Government.
This Court had, after taking companynizance of letter dated 18.9.1997 written by Justice U.L. Bhat, the then President of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal to the Chief Justice of India pointing out that the respondent had published objectionable editorials in 1996 86 Excise Law Times pages A169 to A179, 1996 87 Excise Law Times pages A59 to A70 and 1997 94 Excise Law Times pages A65 to A82 companytaining half truths, falsehoods and exaggerated versions of the alleged deficiencies and irregularities in the functioning of the Tribunal, initiated companytempt proceedings against the respondent which came to be registered as Contempt Petition Criminal No.15 of 1997.
S. Singhvi, J. Whether by writing editorial, which was published in Excise Law Times dated 1.6.2009 with the title CESTAT PRESIDENT SETS HOUSE IN ORDER ANNUAL TRANSFERS FOR MEMBERS INTRODUCED REGISTRY IN LINE, the respondent violated the undertaking filed in this Court in Contempt Petition Criminal No.15 of 1997 and whether companytents of the editorial companystitute criminal companytempt within the meaning of Section 2 c of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for short, the Act are the questions which need companysideration in this petition filed by Indirect Tax Practitioners Association, Bangalore under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India.
LETTERS TO CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE CUSTOMS Letter Date Subject 02 03 2009 CESTAT Changing of orders Direction for deposit of Rs.50 lakhs changed to Rs.50,000 in a Customs case booked by DRI involving Rs.
