Meeting with Member (Admn) on 18.08.2017 and points sponsored by us

Point No. 1: Issues related to GST:

(i)           It is found that in GST, the taxpayers would have only ‘one’ IT interface and that is with GSTN irrespective of the tax or tax authority. By legal provisions and return designs, the country’s entire tax and accounting data will be deposited with GSTN.  Taxpayer service would be primarily IT dependent and the quality and pace of disposal will depend singly on GSTN.  The Central and State indirect taxes departments, who have the book authority to administer and collect the GST will continue, jointly and severally, as the interface of the governments of the country and the taxpayers of the country. However, neither they will have any direct access to the taxpayers’ data, nor they will have any access to enhance the quality or pace of GST IT Services. One month into GST, we find that each and every IT related complaints against GSTN, submitted by the taxpayers in CPGRAMS, are being directed by the PMO to the Central GST offices for redress. Any breach of data can pose a serious threat to financial security and sovereignty of the country. Other than strategic controls and tabling of accounts in the Parliament, no statutory controls have been prescribed for GSTN. Hence the CBIC may emphasize to the Government the need to amend or modify the Constitution of GSTN so as to bring it under statutory control of the Government/s allowing audit and vigilance access through CAG and CVC.

(ii)          Considering the vast experience of the CBEC in dealing with classification/ valuation disputes on manufacture, service and clearances, the entire work of Audit and Anti-evasion of all GST assesses may be sought to be done by the Union Government.

Point No.2: Promotions and cadre management:

In comparison with any other cadre of the CBEC or in CBDT, those recruited as Inspectors in Central Excise are the most affected due to stagnation.  They get only one promotion or utmost two, in their entire service.  On the other hand all other cadres get promotions between 4 and 7 from recruitment to retirement. There is no major benefit by way of MACP to this cadre because, invariably even in the promotion or MACP what is available is only an incremental benefit due to the closeness of Pay scales or pay bands of the adjacent cadres, in the hierarchy.  The following is the comparable position in respect of those officers who had been recruited through a combined common SSC Exam:

Name of the cadre	Present position
Inspector of Income Tax	Who joined in 1989 have become Addl Commisioners
Examiners of Customs	Who joined in 1998 have become ACs
Preventive Officers	Who joined in 1992 have become ACs
Inspectors of Central Excise	Who joined in 1985 are only Superintendents

The above position is fairly conceded in the recently submitted report of the Stagnation Committee with Shri. Balesh Kumar ADG (HRM-I) as the Chairman.

Comments on the report of Stagnation Committee:

The Stagnation Committee in its draft report has stated that the difference in qualifying service required for promotion to the posts of Supdts of CEx, Supdt of Custom Preventive and Appraisers caused disparity in promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Commissioner.  This is not correct for the reason that when there is heavy stagnation and Inspectors could not get promotion even after 15 years to 20 years, the higher qualifying service cannot be held to be a reason for the disparity.  The proposal to reduce the qualifying service for promotion to the cadre of Superintendent of Central Excise will only serve to increase the regional disparity within Central Excise whereby more and more junior officers of one state would become supervisory officers for senior officers in another state.  Bringing parity in qualifying service, at best, will bring in uniform eligibility criteria. It does not ensure promotion of all officers batch wise in a given year. Hence, it is in no way going to mitigate the problem of stagnation.

The Stagnation Committee has suggested that in order to do away with the inter-zonal disparity in promotions within Central Excise, the vacant posts in one zone could be moved to the stagnating zone.  Apart from the feasibility of the proposal due to working requirements, even if this is implemented, it would benefit only the present Inspectors and would not serve to mitigate the stagnation at the level of Superintendents.  The suggested merger of cadres of C.Ex and Customs at the level of Inspector level posts also is for only prospective implementation. An easier and effective option for the future would be adoption of All India Seniority for Inspectors atleast from 2006 because, after 2006 they have been recruited through a single All India Exam and based on All India merit list. 

The Stagnation Committee has recommended grant of weightage for seniority for promotion to Group A.  It would be more appropriate to give weightage for the length of service beyond qualifying service in the Group B cadre instead of a flat two years.

 The Committee has recommended permitting Superintendents of CGST to go on deputation to SGST to a post one above the post currently held.  It is to be emphasised that it has to be one post higher to the corresponding post of that of the Superintendents.  This is because in many of the States, the GST Officers comparable to the Inspectors and Superintendents of CGST have been upgraded by one level whereby the Officers who were Commercial Tax Officers comparable to the Superintendents of CGST are Assistant Commissioners.  For example, in states like Telengana, at the time of toll out of GST, the GST Officers have already been given two promotions. Similarly in the same manner, the Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners also could be permitted to go on deputation to the State GST posts.

The Committee has recommended grant of NFU for Inspectors and Superintendents for delay in promotion to be computed in relation to the comparable services in Central Secretariat Services.

The Committee has suggested extension of tenure of the 2118 AC posts created temporarily.  While the temporary posts were created to mitigate Stagnation and since it is not on the regular strength, it should be available only for mitigating stagnation. Furthermore, these 2118 posts are not part of Group A RRs 2016 and hence the ratio of promotion to regular Gr ‘A’ posts should not be applied.

In 2014, 2118 posts of ACs were created on a temporary basis to mitigate stagnation.  However, as on date more than 600 posts of Assistant Commissioners are lying vacant and many number of Superintendents are retiring with only one promotion in their entire career of more than 35 years.  Hence there is an urgent need to intervene in the issue immediately.  The immediate problem faced in conducting DPCs has been stated as the litigation regarding the implementation of the judgement of the Apex Court in the N.R.Parmar case. 

In the light of the above, the following urgent steps are suggested to improve the situation:

1)    Issue instructions to the field formations giving detailed guidelines regarding implementation of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar as has been done by CBDT vide F. No. HRD/CM/220/14/2013-14 dated 07.11.2014.

2)    Issue of All India Seniority of Superintendents (which was last issued as on 1.1.2007 only).

3)    Conducting DPC for the posts of Assistant Commissioners within 2 months by which time the Cadre Controlling Authorities are required to revise the Seniority Lists of Inspectors and Superintendents as per the above said instructions.

4)    In the event of delay in finalising revision of Seniority lists by the Cadre Controlling Authorities, conduct DPCs as suggested by the Eranakulam CAT in para 20 of its order in O.A No. 180/403/2015 dated 15.12.2015.

5)    The ad hoc promotions from 1.1.97 may be regularised.

6)    A time frame may be fixed for getting the ACs promoted under Temporary slots to Organised cadre in symmetric alignment with regularisation of ad hoc promotions from 1.1.97

7)    Extension may be sought for the 2118 posts of ACs for another 5 years and fill them up only from the stagnating cadres.

8)    Superintendents and ACs/DCs may be permitted to go on deputation to the SGST as Deputy Commissioners, since the Commercial Tax Officers have already been upgraded to the level of Assistant Commissioners in most of the States.

9)    Similarly the ACs and DCs of the department also may be permitted to go to SGST on deputation as JCs or ADCs.

10) A onetime relaxation may be sought from the DOPT to grant promotions for Officers completing service as below:

On completion of	To be promoted as
8 years from entry as Inspector	Superintendent
15 years from entry as Inspector	Assistant Commissioner
20 years from entry as Inspector	Deputy Commissioner
25 years from entry as Inspector	Joint Commissioner
30 years from entry as Inspector	Additional Commissioner

11) As a permanent measure, the proposal for giving weightage of seniority according to actual period of stagnation and grant of NFU as suggested by the Stagnation Committee could be pursued simultaneously.

Point No. 3: Customs postings and re-organisation:

          Though land customs and minor Ports have been handled by Central Excise Officers, the proportion of promotions to the grade of Group A has not been commensurate. 

In the year 1996, the CBEC undertook an exercise of up-gradation of Inspectors and Preventive Officers who had completed service of 15 years without a single promotion and granted them one promotion to the next grade.  1756 Officers were covered by that scheme from 1996 to 2001.  The Board also took a decision vide Brief No. 72/95 on 16.1.96 to merge the Executive Cadres of Examiners of Customs, Preventive Officers of Customs and Inspectors of Central Excise who are all recruited through a common examination conducted by the SSC, but between which cadres a wide disparity was prevalent in respect of promotional avenues. But till date that decision has not been implemented and the disparity between these coevals has only increased multi-fold causing disquiet and disenchantment. Subsequently in 2014, the DGHRM has again reiterated the wide disparity between these cadres, in a note on the subject.  It is pertinent to point out that due to the non-implementation of the decision of the Board to merge the three cadres in 1996, it is the Central Excise side which has borne the brunt even further.  The cadre of Preventive Officers who were also stagnating beyond 15 years during 1996, have now gone to the point where a 1992 Preventive Officer could become an Assistant Commissioner, even as the 1985 Inspector of Central Excise continues to be a Superintendent of Central Excise. This has resulted in junior officers from Customs becoming supervisory officers to the senior officers in Central Excise.

          Repeated requests to the CBEC to implement its own decision of 1996 have been of no avail. Hence, if the integration of the base cadres of Examiners of Customs, Preventive Officers of Customs and Inspectors of Central Excise, who are all recruited through a common examination conducted by the SSC, is not possible from the date of the resolution of the Board in 1996,

(i)           Either CBIC may be bifurcated as C.Ex/CGST and Customs, or

(ii)          Customs may be made a separate organisation within the CBIC. 

The above bifurcation would also effectively do away with one of the major cause of heartburn to the Central Excise officers viz. the highly demoralising situation where one has to work under a Customs officer junior by year of recruitment to an equivalent cadre. Even otherwise, consequent to the roll out of GST, there appears to be an urgent need to re-organise the CBIC so as to keep the Customs within the ambit of the Union Government. 

           Either way, since all Central Excise Officers are also Customs Officers, as is done at the time of bifurcation of any organisation, all the staff of Central Excise may be given a onetime option between the Central Excise/CGST or Customs.

          If Customs is to be made into a separate organisation/wing within the CBIC, the following pattern will have to be followed to take care of mutual interests of all stake holders:

(i)   Have one Recruitment Rules for the C.Ex & CGST Promotee Group A Officers and one for the Customs Promotee Group A Officers, upto the rank of Commissioner on either side and

(ii) Make mobility between the two wings possible only for the Direct Recruit IRS Officers.

Point No. 4: Pay scale issues:

(i)           Seeking notional fixation of pay for Inspectors and Superintendents from 1.1.96.

The pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise, Superintendents of Central Excise and their equivalent cadres were revised as under vide Expenditure Department’s O.M. No.6/37/98-IC dated 21st April, 2004:-

Post	Existing Scale	Revised Scale
Income Tax Officer	Rs.6500-10500	Rs.7500-12000
Appraiser (CentralExcise)	Rs.6500-10500	Rs.7500-12000
Superintendent (Central Excise)	Rs.6500-10500	Rs.7500-12000
Superintendent (Customs Preventive)	Rs.6500-10500	Rs.7500-12000
Income Tax Inspector	Rs.5500-9000	Rs.6500-10500
Inspector (Central Excise)	Rs.5500-9000	Rs.6500-10500
Examiner (Customs)	Rs.5500-9000	Rs.6500-10500
Preventive Officer (Customs)	Rs.5500-9000	Rs.6500-10500

The above revision of scales was done on the basis of the findings of the 5^th CPC as mandated by the Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur in its order dated 24.2.1995.  The 5^th CPC had placed the Inspectors of Central Excise, Income Tax etc on par with the Inspectors of CBI and IB, though all the above category of Officers were held not to be comparable with the Inspectors of Police in Delhi, etc. 

Though the 5^th CPC took effect on 1.1.1996, the above revision of scales on the basis of the 5^th CPC recommendations were granted only with a prospective effect from 21.04.2004.

          As a result, the seniors in the cadre of Inspectors and presently Superintendents who had joined before 2004 did not get the actual benefit of this pay revision.

          It may be noted that in the case of similar revision of pay scales on the basis of 5^th Pay Commission recommendation itself, the following category of Officers in other departments had been granted notional fixation of pay from 1.1.1996:

1)    Accounts Officers in the Department of Telecom

2)    Superintending Engineers in P&T, Electrical and Architectural Wing

3)    Draftsman Grades I & II in Dept of Telecom

4)    Inspectors of Post Offices/Railway Mail Services

5)    Staff Car Drivers

6)    School Teachers.

7)    Junior and Senior Hindi Translators.

8)    Assistant Manager, Mail Motor Services

9)    Departmental Librarians.

10) Organised Accounts Department.

11) Divisional Accountants/Divisional Accounts Officers of IA&AD

12) Organised Group A Services. 

During the proceedings before the CAT, Jabalpur in the above said case, the CBEC had stated in writing that the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of Central Excise were more arduous and hazardous than the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of CBI, etc.  Further, there was no change in the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise and equivalent cadres, on 21.04.2004, requiring a revision of pay scale only from that date.

Hence, in the interest of the officers of this department, in whose favour findings had been given by the 5^th CPC, it is requested that the CBIC should take up with the Expenditure Department the need to grant at least notional fixation of the revised pay from 1.1.1996, if not with arrears.

(ii)          Seeking withdrawal of SLP in respect of granting of GP of Rs. 5400 in P.B-2 on completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800 in P.B-2

The meagre solace for the stagnating cadre of Inspector/Superintendent community in CBEC has been the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB 2 on completion of 4 years of regular service in GP of Rs. 4800 for the post of Superintendent of Central Excise as per the Revised Pay Rules, 2008.  GP of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 was to be granted on Non Functional basis after regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800 PB-2 for Group B Officers. 

As per the above scheme, the Inspectors of Central Excise who are Group B Officers w.e.f 11.12.2003 as per CBEC Circular in F.No. 18013/100/2003.AD.III.B dated 24.10.2007, are entitled for the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on completion of 4 years regular service in GP of Rs. 4800 PB-2.

However, CBEC vide F.No.A.26017/98/2008-Ad.II.A dated 11.2.2009, communicated the clarification of Department of Expenditure that the GP of Rs. 5400 could be given on completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800 in PB-2 after regular promotion and not on account of financial upgradation due to ACP.

The above stand of the Expenditure Department militates against the very concept of ACP/MACP which has been implemented with the sole objective of giving relief to those who are affected by stagnation.  Thus, when a financial upgradation has been granted in lieu of promotion, the consequential relief that a promotion would have entailed also ought to have been extended.

Further, in the entire Country, there could not be another cadre like that of the Inspector of Central Excise presently Superintendent of Central Excise who have faced stagnation at the level of this Pay Scale.

Whenever the matter has been agitated, the Courts have also ruled in favour of extending the benefit to the employees in the following judicial decisions:

(1)  Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 6.9.2010 in W.P. No. 13225 of 2010 in the case of M. Subramaniam of Centrl Excise.

(2)   Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 8.12.2016 in OP (CAT).No. 276 of 2010 (Z) in the case of S. Ashoka Narayanan of Central Excise.

(3)  In respect of case of Shri. A. Shivakumar and Shri. P. Mallachari in the Department of Space, the SLP Nos 27687/2016 and 34238/2016 of the the Government had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the benefit extended to the petitioners.

Hence it is requested that the matter may once again be brought to the notice of the DOPT impressing upon them the need to grant the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on completion of continuous service in GP of Rs. 4800 PB-2 irrespective of whether it was by promotion or ACP, because ACP/MACP is given only because there were no posts available for promotion and when promotion could not be granted to the individuals for no fault of theirs.  This would pave way for withdrawal of the SLP No. 15627/2011 filed against the Judgement dated 6.9.2010 of the Madras High Court (converted into Civil Appeal No. 8883/2011) and the benefit of the GP NFU be extended to all those who had got the ACP in GP 4800.

Point No. 5: The need to restore the status of Executive Officers

          The essential character of the Department, whether in Central Excise, Customs or GST regimes, is one of Executive - implementation or supervision of implementation or adherence to law.  In this, the main difference between the nature of work between the Executive Officers of this department and staff and officials of other departments is that our Officers do not work strictly within office hours.  Most of the time, either in the office or in the field, the nature of work requires them to stretch beyond office hours and stipulated working days even.  Whether it is anti-evasion, intelligence gathering, investigation, Audit, attending to legal work in the courts or meeting Counsels of the Department or meeting with Officials of other departments, the nature of work is not 09.15 to 17.45 Hrs.  If the timings relevant for seat work like banking hours become the norm, the above main activities of the department would suffer. Such a time culture would inculcate only ‘time niggardliness’ and not ‘result orientedness’ in the new generation and the department would suffer irreparably.  This has to be urgently addressed if the profile of the department is to be maintained.

Point No. 6: Instructions required to be issued to the field formations on:

(i)           Actual duties and responsibilities of each cadre

          Due to change in work culture and nature of duties and responsibilities for all the Executive cadres in CBIC, consequent to the roll out of GST, the staff requirement requires to be re-assessed corresponding to duties and responsibilities to be defined and issued by the CBIC for all cadres.

(ii)          Uniform

          No instructions on the prescribed pattern or rules for wearing are in vogue.  This has been confirmed in a reply to a query under RTI dated 11.12.2009 and also by the CBEC before the CIC in the proceedings dated 29.01.2010.  The CIC had in the above cited order, also observed that the CBEC should consider issuing detailed and clear guidelines in this regard. Till date no guidelines have been issued on the above.

               The uniform which was last prescribed in the Tobacco Excise Manual (TEM) was not included in the Basic Excise Manual (BEM) in 1989. The BEM itself in the introduction states that those instructions not included in the BEM stand rescinded. 

     The Office Procedure Manual (OPM) which has not been reprinted after 1970 also contained only the same pattern prescribed in the TEM, with an additional stipulation that the Collectors of Central Excise should notify a tailor in each District from whom such uniforms should be procured.  In the absence of the said pattern and guidelines, the kakhi uniform which is being presently worn, is merely a copy of the Police Uniform and being completely different from the pattern prescribed in the TEM & OPM itself, is only an act in self deception.  With the varied shades of Khaki and brown shoes, it has become a mockery of the concept of Uniform itself.

     Further, requiring officers to don uniform without providing the basic facilities of changing rooms, and separate cabins according to the posts held by them, violates basic decency and decorum.  When a conscious decision has been taken to have differently abled persons also in the cadre, insisting upon height, for recruitment is devoid of logic.

          It is clear that the nature of duties undertaken on the Central Excise or CGST side have no requirement of Uniform.  SGST Officers also do not don any uniforms.   Uniform is required for Customs areas alone.

          Presently dress allowance has been prescribed for Officers and staff of Customs and Central Excise vide O.M. No. 19051/1/2017-E.IV dated 2.08.2017 w.e.f 1.7.2017.

          Hence, there is an urgent need to clarify the nature and pattern of the attire to be worn by the staff of Customs, Central Excise and GST specifically and separately. 

While prescribing such a pattern care has to be taken that

(i)           CBIC does not continue to get blamed for running an ‘Inspector Raj’, even in the GST era, by prescribing a Police Man like attire

(ii)          Officers prescribed with Uniform are permitted to travel for Official work in Departmental or department hired vehicles, on par with their counter parts in other Uniformed services

(iii)        Separate changing rooms are made available for Males and Females in all floors of all the offices and

(iv)         There is an expenditure justification for spending more than Rs. 62 Crores per annum under the above head.

(iii)        Regulation of postings to Directorates, Audit Commissionerate etc-

          In the post GST scenario, number of Directorates and Audit Commissionerates has come into being.  It had been the consistent practice in the CBEC that for Audit and Directorates, hands with experience and willingness are selected.  However, it is found that the above said criterion is not being followed for these sensitive postings.  Consequently, the efficiency and efficacy of these organisations would suffer.  Hence, instructions may be issued to follow the criterion of seniority-cum-willingness for the postings to Directorates and Audit Commissionerates.

(iv)        Infrastructure

          The Board has been issuing repeated instructions to the field formations regarding the necessity to improve the infrastructure position of the offices in the formations.  However, in practice, the Officers of the field formations appear to be satisfied if their rooms with necessary facilities, personal staff and vehicles are available. 

Ø  The minimum required office space is not available for the staff and officers.

Ø  Most of the Gazetted Officers on the Executive side do not have separate cabins, though it is an entitlement and requirement for the execution of the duties and responsibilities.  When compared to their counterparts in other Central Government departments and even the SGST Officials, these officers are placed in pathetic condition.  The situation has worsened since 2002.

Ø  There is no mechanism in the field offices to record the files which are necessary to be preserved, with proper indexing in such a manner to reach them whenever required, nor dedicated personnel are available for that purpose. 

Ø  There is no mechanism to destroy unwanted records or files where no action is pending and which may not be required under the RTI Act.

Ø  The field level Executive Officers do not have any facilities under the 1% incentive, even though they are required to make expenses for making phone calls, internet connections, etc for office requirement.

Therefore it is suggested that the following measures could be undertaken to improve the situation:

1)    Commissioners may be given a time frame to submit proposals for acquiring new buildings for purchase or on hire as per the space required as per austerity standards, for the sanctioned strength of each formation.

2)    Until such time, all Officers should be encouraged to occupy only such space as is entitled to them on a pro-rata basis out of the actually available space for all staff members.

3)    A mechanism may be devised for upkeep of records and periodical recording and destruction.

4)    A time frame and mechanism may be provided to destroy unwanted records and record the necessary ones.

5)    The Executive Officers in the field may be made entitled for the 1% incentive scheme. One cell phone each with a SIM card, monthly reimbursement for call charges and internet charges may be made available for them also. Lap tops may also be provided for all Officers involved in field work like Audit and Anti-evasion.

(v)          Meetings at regional levels

          Though instructions have been issued by the Chairman, CBIC to the Zonal Officers to hold meetings with the Associations, they have not been conducted.  As a result, many local issues could not be sorted out through discussions.  This also gives rise to the number of memorandums/representations/letters addressed by the local Association Office Bearers to the Board.  Hence the instructions will have to be reiterated and a periodical report be called for from the field to monitor whether the stipulated meetings are held.