Central Information Commission
R. K. Jain vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 4 May, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CESAT/A/2018/134906
Shri R K Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, O/o. The Customs ... ितवादी /Respondent
Excise & Service & Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Assistant Registrar, West
Block-2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.02.2017 FA : 30.03.2017 SA : 01.06.2018
CPIO : 14.03.2017. FAO : 07.03.2018. Hearing : 29.04.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. The Customs Excise & Service & Tax Appellate Tribunal, Assistant Registrar, West Block-2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information on 10 points, including, inter-alia: "(A) Please provide copies of Weekly list Orders - released by Delhi Benches CESTAT from l-l-2016 till the date providing the information; (B) Please provide number of orders pending for certification and issue as on 27-2-2017 and as on the date of providing the information in relation to all Benches of the CESTAT, Delhi; (C) Please provide list of orders pending for certification and Page 1 of 5 issue as on 27-2-2017 and as on the date of providing the information in relation to all Benches of the CESTAT, Delhi; (D) Please provide list of cases in which the orders have not been certified and issued within 7 days of the receipt of order by the Assistant Registrar of all the benches of CESTAT, Delhi from 1-10-2016 till date of providing information; (E) Please provide copy of the Order Issue Register of all the Benches of CESTAT Delhi from 1-7-2016 till the date of providing the information. If no separate register is maintained then the register/record in which such information is contained may be provided or the digital records may be provided, etc."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the complete information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 30.03.2017 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 07.03.2018 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Rajender Prasad, CPIO attended the hearing through video-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated nil and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him on point nos. 4(f), (i) and (h) of his RTI application. The appellant stated that the technical office vide his note dated 14-3-2017 offered inspection of weekly statement file but the FAA subsequently claimed that the circular is not traceable hence compliance thereof is not possible, is a contradictory stand only to delay and deny the information. He stated that when the officer is offering records Page 2 of 5 for inspection of the said file then he cannot thereafter deny the information on the ground that no circular is available. He further submitted that the First Appellate Authority in its order has noted that copies of the weekly reports are being uploaded on the website. This also proves the existence of the circular thus the CPIO and FAA has erred in not providing the information as sought from 1-7- 2016. The appellant further submitted that the First Appellate Authority has erred in not appreciating that in relation to point (F), he himself has recorded about providing of such information by Ahmedabad and Chennai Bench of the CESTAT. This also proves that there was a circular which was being complied with by some of the benches of the CESTAT, therefore, the information for rest of the benches should have been provided or the information about action taken for non- compliance of the circular should have directed to be provided. Therefore, the order of the First Appellate Authority in this respect is incorrect, illegal and liable to be set aside and the CPIO be directed to provide the information in time bound frame.
6. The respondent submitted that point-wise reply/information has already been provided to the appellant. He stated that the FAA vide order dated 07.03.2018 stated that "The information has been sought by the appellant pertaining to the weekly reports as stipulated in the two circulars dated 07.12.2005 and 28.07.2006. It has been reported that both the circulars are not traceable in spite of serious efforts made, but the reports received pertaining to the circular dated 07.12.2005 and available in record has already been furnished to the appellant by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). Hence it is seen that pertaining to the circular, dated
07.l2.2005 all available information has been furnished. The respondent further submitted that vide their letter dated 07.04.2017, it was informed to the appellant on point no. 4(h) that no action has been taken.
Page 3 of 5Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant in his second appeal has made his dissatisfaction with respect to point no. 4(f). But, during the oral arguments in the hearing, the appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him on point nos. 4(f), (h) and (i).
8. The Commission observed that the appellant has sought information from CESTAT Headquarter office but not from all the PIOs of different benches of CESTAT. The Commission further observes that the appellant in his arguments stated that there are reports which were submitted by different benches (like it was submitted by Ahmedabad and Chennai bench) in HQ office in compliance of the circular but the respondent has not provided the same except Ahmedabad and Chennai. He stated that if other benches have not complied with the said circular then what action has been taken by the HQ CESTAT. The respondent contention is that the information which is available at HQs has been provided to the appellant.
He further stated that they have sent the RTI application of the appellant to all the benches of CESTAT.
9. The Commission observes that there are variations in the reply given by the respondent. Further, the contention of the appellant is also presumptive that there may be reports which were submitted by different benches of CESTAT to the HQ CESTAT. Nonetheless, in view of the above observations, the Commission directs the respondent to provide to the appellant revised point-wise reply/information on point nos. 4(f), (h) and (i) of the RTI application dated 24.02.2017 (the information which is available on the record at HQ, CESTAT), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 511. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to he parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date:-29.04.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. THE CPIO, O/o. The Customs Excise & Service &-
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nodal CPIO &-
Assistant Registrar, RTI Cell, West Block-2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.
2. Shri R. K. Jain, Page 5 of 5