Central Information Commission
Dilip Kumar Chatterjee vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs - ... on 9 January, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000173
Dated 06.01.2017
Appellant : Shri Dilip Kumar Chatterjee
BoneikelaNear Block Office Joda,
Dist.-Keonjhar, Odisha-758038
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
O/o the Commissioner Central Excise
Customs & Service Tax,
Bhubaneshwar-II, CR- Building,
Rajaswa Bihar, Bhubaneshwar,
Odisha-751007
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2015
CPIO' reply : 16.04.2015
First appeal filed on : 27.04.2015
FAA's Order : 29.07.2015
Second Appeal filed on : 19.01.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Dilip Kumar Chatterjee filed an application dated 18.03.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-IIseeking information/documents on sixpoints pertaining to an order no. BSR-EXCUS-002-Com-023-14-15 dated 20.02.2015 V(15)29/S.Tax/Adjn/BBSR-II/2012 against him, including (a) copy of the Certificate of Registration of Banspani Iron Ltd., under the Service Tax Act, 1994 and (b) documents evidencing the activities and CIC/SB/A/2016/000173 Page1 nature of activities of the company Banspani Iron Ltd., for which the company has been registered under the Service Tax Act.
2. Shri Dilip Kumar Chatterjee filed a second appeal dated 19.01.2016 before the Commission on the grounds that CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not provide the information sought by him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. Shir Naresh Aggrawalrepresentative of the appellantShri Dilip Kumar Chatterjeeand the respondent Shri V.K.Nayak, Assistant Commissioner, O/o the Commissioner Central Excise Customs & Service Taxattended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him. The appellant further submitted that his RTI application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, Keonjhar Division of Central Excise as the information was not available with the CPIO, Bhubaneshwar-II (HQ). However, CPIO, Keonjhar Division of Central Excise too did not provide information in respect of point nos. (c), (d) and (e) of the RTI application.
5. The respondent (CPIO, Keonjhar Division of Central Excise) submitted that information on point nos. (a), (b) and (f) of the RTI application was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 20.05.2015. The respondent further submitted that information in respect of point nos. (c), (d) and (e) of the RTI application could not be provided to the appellant as no records in respect of the same are available with the Keonjhar Division of Central Excise as the same are not required for registration under the Service Tax Act 1994. Hence, information as per available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 16.04.2015.
CIC/SB/A/2016/000173 Page2 Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that point wise information has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide point wise information as per available records to the appellant, within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/000173 Page3