F.
No.390/Misc./69/2015-JC
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Excise & Customs
(Judicial Cell)
New Delhi Dated 15th December ,2015
Instruction
Sub: Authorizing officers of the Zone to appear before
CESTAT Bench
A reference has been received in the Board to empower the
Principal Chief Commissioners of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
/Chief Commissioners of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax to authorize
officers from their zone to appear before the Bench of CESTAT.
2. In this regard attention is invited to the definition of
the “authorized representative’” under sub-rule (c) of rule 2 of the Customs,
Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (issued vide
CEGAT Notification No. 1/CEGAT/82, dated 25-10-1982 as amended), which reads as
under:
Definitions.
– In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, –
(c) “authorised representative” in relation to any
proceedings before the Tribunal means, –
(i) a person authorised by the person referred to in
sub-section (1) of section 146A of the Customs Act, or, as the case may be,
sub-section (1) of section 35Q of the Central Excises Act or sub-section (1) of
section 101A of the Gold (Control) Act, to appear on his behalf in such proceedings;
or
(ii) a person duly appointed [by the Central Government or
by an officer duly authorised in this behalf] as authorised representative to
appear, plead and act for the [Commissioner] or Administrator, in such
proceedings;
Sub-section (1) of Section 35 Q of the Central Excise
Act,1944 (as made applicable to service tax matters also under Section 83 of
Finance Act,1994) and similar sub-section (1) of Section 146A of Customs
Act,1962 reads as under:
“Any person who is entitled or required to appear before a
Central Excise Officer or the Appellate Tribunal in connection with any
proceedings under this Act, otherwise than when required under this Act to
appear personally for examination on oath or affirmation, may, subject to the
other provisions of this section, appear by an authorised representative.”
And clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 35 Q of the
Central Excise Act, 1944 (as made applicable to service tax matters also under
Section 83 of Finance Act,1994) and similar sub-section (2) of Section 146A of
Customs Act,1962 reads as under:
“(2) For the purposes of this section, “authorised
representative” means a person authorised by the person referred to in
sub-section (1) to appear on his behalf, being-
(a) his relative or regular employee; or
shall be qualified to represent any person under sub-section
(1), for all times in the case of a person referred to in clause (a), and for
such time as the [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of
Central Excise] or the competent authority under the Customs Act, 1962 or the
Gold (Control) Act, 1968, as the case may be, may, by order, determine in the
case of a person referred to in clause (b), and for the period during which the
insolvency continues in the case of a person referred to in clause (c).”
3. The provisions of the Section 35Q of the Central Excise
Act (as made applicable to service tax matters also under Section 83 of Finance
Act,1994) and Section 146A of Customs Act,1962 entrusts the appellant
Commissioner to authorize his officer to plead before any Central Excise/ Customs
Officer or CESTAT on his behalf. Further in terms of clause (ii) of rule 2(c)
of the CESTAT Procedures Rules,1982, a person duly appointed [by the Central
Government or by an officer duly authorised in this behalf] as authorised
representative to appear, plead and act for the [Commissioner] or
Administrator, in adjudication as well as appeal proceedings.
4. In view of above, Chief Commissioners are already empowered
under the provisions of Section 35Q (as made applicable to service tax matters
also under Section 83 of Finance Act,1994) and Section 146A of Customs Act,1962
read with clause (ii) of rule 2(c) of the CESTAT (Procedures) Rules, 1982 to
authorize a jurisdictional officer to appear before the CESTAT Bench for
pleading a case on behalf of the department . The Board has decided that where
no officer is available to argue cases, based on merits of the case, the Chief
Commissioner may, in such cases authorize any other officer of his zone to
appear before the Tribunal.
(Rohit Singhal)
Dy. Secretary(Review)