9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent were represented by Shri S. Bhowmik, Under Secretary and Shri Yogesh Sharma, Section Officer. 2. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 22-8-2011 sought information on the following seven queries : "(A) Please provide the information as to the date when the reports of CESTAT Inquiry Committee was received in O/O Revenue Secretary or Department of Revenue and date of forwarding letter and name and designation of officer signing it; (B) Please provide copy of letter under which the aforesaid report has been received at D.O.R; (C) Please provide the date-wise details of the action taken on the said report; (D) Provide copies of the orders/ directions of the President, CESTAT on the aforesaid report; (E) Please provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to 3rd party, a copy of the notice dated 16-9-2011 issued to the 3rd party was also provided to the appellant. The appellant vide his letter dated 26-9-2011, informed the CPIO about the non-receipt of the enclosures, which was sent again by the CPIO vide letter dated 3-10-2011. The CPIO received the reply of the 3rd party vide their letter dated 29-9-2011 and after examination of which, the CPIO decided not to disclose the information. The appellant was informed about the same vide letter dated 4-10-2011 and a copy of the 3rd party's reply was also enclosed with the letter. The appellant vide his letter dated 24-11-2011 informed CPIO about the non-receipt of 3rd party's reply enclosed with the letter which was faxed to him by Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry Committee headed by Dr. C. Satyapati stated that no such report has been received in the Department of Revenue, whereas the Registrar, CESTAT by his letter dated 18-8-2011 has already forwarded a copy of the said Final Report to DOR. Therefore, the CPIO has provided false and incorrect information deliberately to withhold the information. The FAA has erred in not appreciating that Shri Victor James, by 3rd notice dated 16-9-2011 asked the CESTAT whether it "has any objection to the above mentioned document being disclosed to the RTI applicant". To this specific query and notice, the CESTAT's reply dated 29-9-2011 nowhere objected to the disclosure of the information to the appellant. It merely states that a new enquiry committee has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on the pretext that there is a third party objection. He therefore prays that the order of the FAA be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide complete information to him. He also prays for enquiry to be instituted u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act and penalty imposed on the CPIO for knowingly and malafidely not providing the correct and complete information as sought by the appellant for not providing copy of third party's reply before taking decision in the matter. 5. The respondent CPIO states during the hearing that the FAA vide its order dated 31-1-2012 had held that the process of enquiry was not concluded at that time. Therefore, its disclosure is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 6. The 3rd party i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
