Central Information Commission
M V Maheshwari 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/2016/000077
Dated 06.01.2017
Appellant : Shri M.V. Maheshwari,
C/o Ganesh Tubes & Services Pvt.Ltd.,
T-115, MIDC, Bhosari,
Pune-411026
Respondent : The CentralPublic Information Officer,
O/o Assistant Commissioner,
Central Excise,Mahad Division,
Raigad Commissionerate,
1st Floor, CGO Complex CBD,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400616
Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.06.2015
CPIO' reply : 14.07.2015
First appeal filed on : 29.07.2015
FAA's Order : 01.09.2015
Second Appeal filed on : 04.12.2015
ORDER
1. Shri M.V. Maheshwarifiled an application dated 22.06.2015under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before theCentral Public Information Officer (CPIO),Central Excise Raigad Commissionerateseekinginformation on (i) how the demand amount of Rs.229.27 crores in their Show Cause Notices (SCNs) has been worked out - working of demand amount and evidence for the same and (ii) what was the month-wise assessable value of Polyester Filament CIC/SB/A/2016/000077 Page 1 Yarn of Konkan Synthetic Fibres for the Financial Year April, 1998 to March, 1999 and April, 1999 to March, 2000.
2. ShriM.V. Maheshwarifiled a second appeal dated 30.11.2015 before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO incorrectly denied information on point nos (i) and (iii) of the RTI application by claiming exemptionsunder Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and that the information on point no.(ii) of the RTI application was denied on the ground that it is more than 10 years old and that the records are not available in the Range office.
Hearing:
3. The appellantShriM.V. Maheshwari attended hearing through audio conferencing. The respondent Shri Amit Bhaskar, Deputy Commissioner, O/o Central Excise Mahad Division, Mumbai was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO incorrectly denied information on point nos (i) and (iii) of the RTI application by claiming exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and that the information on point no.
(ii) of the RTI application was denied on the ground that it is more than 10 years old and that the records are not available in the Range office.
5. The respondent submitted that a point wise reply has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 14.07.2015. The respondent further submitted that the appellant was informed in respect of point nos. (i) and (iii) of the RTI application that the information sought relates to a third party and any disclosure would adversely affect the trade secrets of the third party concerned. Hence, disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. The respondent also stated that the case is pending adjudication at the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Hence, the disclosure of the information would impede the process of prosecution of offender, therefore, the said information is exempted from disclosure as per CIC/SB/A/2016/000077 Page 2 Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The respondent in respect of point no. (ii) of the RTI application submitted that the necessary records are not available in the Range office as the same have been weeded out.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought in point nos. (i) and
(iii) of the RTI application relates to a matter which is pending adjudication at CESTAT. Hence, disclosure of the information sought would impede the process of adjudication, therefore, the said information is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission, in respect of point no. (ii) of the RTI application observes that the information sought has been denied on the ground that the same is more than 10 years old and is not available in the Range office. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a copy of the Record Retention Schedule along with the order of the Competent Authority vide which the records sought in point no. (ii) of the RTI application have been weeded out, to the appellant within a period of four 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/2016/000077 Page 3