TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter to referred as the CPIO). This decision was communicated by the CPIO in reply to an application dated 14-11-2008 made by Shri R.K. Jain, New Delhi seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as RTI Act). 2. The issue in brief is that the appellant had sent an application dated 14-11-2008 under RTI Act, 2005 to the Central Public Information Officer, O/o the Commissioner of Central Excise, No. 1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli 1, Tamilnadu which was received on 18-11-2008 wherein he sought certain information which are reproduced as follows : (a) Copies of Order-in-Appeal passed during 1-4-2008 to 31-10-2008 by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of copies of orders in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli during the period 1-4-2008 to 31-10-2008. The CPIO had also relied on a decision of Hon ble CIC No. 141/IC(A)/2006 F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00258, dated 25th July 2006 wherein it was observed that : The information contained in the return of Company, or for that matter that of any Company, and in the assessment and appeal proceedings of it contain information relating to the business transactions the Company had with it clients, such information certainly are in the nature of commercial confidence. Under Section 8(1)(d) such information can be disclosed only if larger public interest warrants such disclosure. Similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) is not applicable in the case and Orders-in-Appeals passed by Commissioner Appeals) are quasi-judicial orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which are subject to further appeal to higher Appellate Authorities; RTI Act, 2005 by virtue of Section 22 is having overriding effect on all other laws for the time being in force; the CPIO contention that there is no provision in Central Excise Act and Rules to provide copies of Orders-in-Appeal are not correct and the decision of Central Information Commission is not applicable to his case. The appellant requested to furnish the desired information at the earliest. 5. The CPIO was called upon to discharge his onus to prove that denial of the request was ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PIO has neither issued show cause notice to the applicant nor heard him, the CPIO submitted that there is no express provisions in the RTI Act, 2005 to issue show cause notice to the applicant or to hear him before giving a decision and hence the contention of the appellant is not sustainable. 5.4 The CPIO had further stated that the contention that RTI Act, 2005 is having overriding effect on all other laws for the time being in force, it was merely mentioned that orders are granted free of cost for the private use of the person to whom it is issued and any person deeming himself aggrieved by the order may appeal against the same to Hon ble Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and there is no express provision in the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught vide point No. (a) i.e. copies of Orders-in-Appeals are quasi-judicial orders and they are subject to appeal to higher Appellate Authorities and exemption sought under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not correct as the information is not provided by third parties in commercial confidence but in response to the proceedings under the Central Excise or Service Tax Laws. The appellant further contends that no show cause notice was issued to him or he was not heard before passing of the decision by the CPIO. I find that the RTI Act, 2005 does not provide for issuing show cause notice or hearing before passing of any decision by the CPIO. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the CPIO s decision and conclude that the contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had requested supply of copies of Orders-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Trichy, who is a public authority and the proceedings of the authority are quasi- judicial. The question of denial of information on the ground that of Commercial Confidence as provided under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, is not applicable in the instant case. The Orders-in-Appeals of the Commissioner (Appeals) are even published in various law journals. Thus denial of copies of Order-in-Appeals is not correct. 10. In view of the foregoing I hold that the decision of the CPIO passed under Decision Notice No. 21/2008-CPIO/C.EX-TRY, dated 15-12-2008 in denying copies of Orders-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Trichy during the period 1-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
