TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeding twenty five thousand rupees shall not be imposed for causing such delay in providing information to the appellant - Decided in favour of appellant. - Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001226 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2013 - Ms. Sushma Singh, J. Shri R.K. Jain, the Appellant. Shri Kripa Shankar and S.K. Verma, Asstt. Registrars, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant filed an RTI applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal dated 16-11-2011. The first appellate authority vide his order dated 3-1-2012 held that This is a matter which requires attention by the Registrar of CESTAT. He is directed to ensure that the registers are maintained as directed in order No. 23/2010, dated 14-5-2010. 3. Thereafter the appellant filed second appeal before the Commission mainly on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r delay. (iv) The appellant contends that Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri S.K. Verma have made themselves liable for penalty proceedings and disciplinary proceedings as per the RTI Act by not providing a reply on time. (v) The order dated 14-5-2010 [2010 (254) E.L.T. 655 (RTI)] of the first appellate authority to maintain Memo Register, Complaint Register and vigilance action register has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a facie delay in providing information to the appellant, a separate show cause notice shall be issued to the CPIO and deemed CPIO to explain as to why a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees shall not be imposed for causing such delay in providing information to the appellant. 6. A separate show cause notice will issue. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Indian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
