The Board has called for views from Associations on Uniform.
Members' valued opinions please.
The last Central Committee of the AICEIA had called for abolition of uniform and Control Room, continuing the consistent stand taken by previous Central Committees, and in keeping with Resolutions adopted at CEC meetings/Convention(s).
valuable comments :
The CBEC seeks to impose Uniform on officers from the rank of AC/DC and below. I am saying imposing because, as on date there is no prescribed uniform in the Department for Central Excise and Service Tax.
After the introduction of the BEM in 1989, all provisions in all different Manuals including the Tobacco Excise Manual which were merged and made part of BEM stood abolished as per the preamble of the BEM itself.
BEM does not prescribe Uniform. Thus Uniform prescribed in the Tobacco Excise Manual had been excised off. In the Modvat regime and with SRP and record based control becoming the basis of tax administration, the department had taken a conscious decision to do away with the tobacco culture. Thereafter the modified, present day attire, worn in the name of Uniform (which is not sanctioned even by the TEM) was a mimicary of the police uniform. This I pointed out to the JS (Admn) during a discussion and stated that the present attire without authority amounts to 'an official impersonation of the police force'. He had no counter. Subsequent RTI query has also established that there is no instruction available in the CBEC regarding Uniform, its form, code, ethics, etc.
When we (AICEIA) appeared before the VI CPC and stated that if the Government intends to have this service as a uniformed service, then proper equipment allowances have to be granted, one of the members of the CPC Shri. Mathur, who had earlier served as an Additional Secretary level officer in the CBEC asked, 'has not it been already abolished?'. We said that in practice it is retained for the purposes of 'protocol'. What is 'protocol', he asked. A Joint Secretary of the CPC rushed to explain it as 'taking officers to Airport, Rly Stn, etc'. The member then laughed at it and said 'Oh for that?'. Ultimately, the VI CPC did not give any recommendation for any allowance for uniform.
The present attempt to impose it is born out of a poor rationality and is inimical to the interest of the cadres and department because, at present, even before the CPC our cadres have been protrayed as tech-savy and given to non-intrusive preventive and intelligence gathering work force. It is based on this job profile that our pay and allowances have been fixed. Not on the basis of 'tax constabling on the streets'. There is no scope for a macho image in the new tax regime.
If the direct IRS officers still feel that they are so insecure due to their daunting work, decisions taken by them on sensitive matters day in day out, its implications on thugs and industrialists, whose ire they draw by a no-nonsense approach, that they alone run the CBEC and that therefore they are likely to be targets for unforeseen attacks from anti social and anti national elements, more than any of their counterparts in the IAS, IFS, CBI, Income Tax, Enforcement Directorate, etc and therefore they have to have a security cover, it is better they requisition the Police or even CRPF or such specialised agency to provide the necessary security cover. Considering that the CBEC is one of the highest revenue mobilising agency and that only the direct IRS consider themselves as the main reason for that, they may even seek a Z- category security cover. Or they may create a special and specific cadre in the CBEC itself for this purpose.
In the event of the above options being ruled out by the CBEC, they have to specify first and foremost the duties and responsibilities of all officials in the CBEC from the bottom to top, so that the justification for having uniform or otherwise could be assessed based on the job profile of each and every cadre.
1. The Government while simplifying the Rules and procedures had after due thought amended the Rules/Section concerning “uniform” by the Central Excise & Service Tax officers. However the Board wants to restore the concept of “uniform” by replicating the guidelines which were existent in the Tobacco era and Tobacco Excise Manual which stand outdated. Thus there is no authority/Rule as on date for wearing the uniform by Central Excise & Service Tax officers. Hence the draft guidelines proposed is itself without any authority and not valid.
2. When the taxation reform is going to the stage of digitalization where the assessee are not even required to have any contact with the officers and can operate online and file returns, the purpose of wearing of uniform is redundant and stands negated.
3. Further, there is no relevance for uniform in the liberalised era. The uniform has to be in commensurate with the functions and duties to be performed by the Inspectors/Superintendents. The officers do not move out of the office for PBC/transit checks or lay nakas,which have, by and large, become a thing of past. When the departments approach to the assessee is assessee friendly and of mutual trust, the use of uniform is obnoxious reminiscence of the Licence Raj era.
4. Two decades ago the various powers provided to the departmental officers to visit factories and carry checks have been done away with and in this modern era even LTUs are functioning with officers only termed as “Executives”. So calling for officers to be in uniform in the office throughout working hours is nothing but restoring “Inspector Raj” which is very much against the policy of the Government;
5. Officer of CBI, Income Tax, DRI, Sales Tax, Tahsildars, State Excise also have the power of seizure and arrest, whereas they function without Uniform. So there is no point in prescribing uniform for this department which serves no purpose rather it would only create harassment for the public;
6. As promised by the Government, we are set to move into GST and we are supposed to be Central GST officers while the Sales Tax officers would be State GST. When State GST officers would not be wearing uniform it would be ridiculous for the Central GST officers who would be performing the same function of tax collection to wear uniform;
7. There are many other issues which need attention of the Administration in stead of compelling the members to wear uniform and issuing warnings of disciplinary action. In our opinion in the era of upcoming GST there would be no place for uniform.
8. Please refer to TARC report referred in CBEC F.No. 296/101/2014-Cx.9 dated 04.07.2014 wherein the Committee had in the clearly stressed on the customer focus area and stated “This gives rise to disputes between the taxpayer and tax administration. It is, therefore, crucial to consider the taxpayer as a client and to follow the logic of providing services to the client.” So when the TARC has suggested for customer friendly measures
proposing the draft guidelines for wearing uniform in office hours would only distance the taxpayers from the Revenue.
Without prejudice to the above, the comments called for on the draft guidelines issued are furnished herewith:-
• Uniform has been prescribed only upto the level of Deputy commissioners and not for the officers above that level. In any uniformed service such as police department/judicial department/armed forces, the uniform is prescribed upto the top level officer. So if uniform is to be prescribed let it be provided from the top level officer to the bottom level officer. There cannot be any disparity in wearing of uniform and the term “uniform” itself would become irrelevant;
• Compulsion of wearing uniform is treated amongst our members as a tool of repression. The Association is unable to understand that just by wearing uniform while doing table work, what new the Department would achieve. Besides the Central Excise and Service tax Department there may be hardly any organization which is not a ‘law and order’ enforcement agency but having uniform;
• It has been specified that while going on a two wheeler an officer has to salute his senior by straightening his hands and turning his head towards the senior officer.
This is against the traffic rules and would only lead to accidents either to the driver or the commuter passing along the road;
• When the draft guidelines proposes that “the officers will not travel in a public transport while in uniform”, the following question arises. Is it that the department is ashamed of the officer wearing uniform in public or will the department provide any separate mode of transport facilitating the movement of officers from home to office, office to factory etc.;
• When the higher officer in Group A (above the grade of Deputy Commissioner) is not required to wear uniform but the junior officer in uniform is required to salute him how could the junior officer identify the rank of the higher officer who is not uniformed;
• The guidelines appear to be borrowed from the armed forces/police which are law and order enforcement agencies.
So it is furnished that the draft guidelines issued are not acceptable and the concept of uniform for Central Excise & Service Tax may be done away with as it is not at all needed in this liberalized era.
No comments:
Post a Comment