Central Information Commission
Govind Prasad Dalmia vs Chief Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 17 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857,
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858,
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855,
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245
Govind Prasad Dalmia .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Principal
Commissioner, CGST & Central
Excise, 5A, Central Revenue
Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Ranchi - 834001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.03.2026
Date of Decision : 17.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
as well as the Respondent are same and subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.01.2024
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245
Page 1 of 28
CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 23.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2024 (offline) seeking
the following information:
"(A) Your Patna office had issued Show Cause Notice No. V (15)35-
CEP/94/P.VIII dt. 09.08.1995 for the quarter October-December-1992 to
M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and persons associated with it and "Sri B.
Tudu, The then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central
Excise, Bokaro".
(B) Kindly send me copy of full note sheet of this file No. V(15)35-
CEP/94/P.VIII.
(C) Kindly send me copy of each paper in the file.
(D) Kindly let me know full address with phone and fax No. of the 1st
Appellate Authority under RTI Act, so that I may file appeal against your
good self's order, if I am not satisfied with the order or if no reply is
received within 30 days."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024
stating as under:
"In this regard, the information sought for in respect of RTI application
Ref No. GP/124/11303/2024 dated 10.01.2024 is as under:
Point No. A: Not applicable
Point No. B to Point No. C: The Information sought by you vide above
mentioned RTI application dated 10.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms
of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005, as the present case has not
attained its finality.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245
Page 2 of 28
Point No. D: If you are not satisfied with this reply, you can file an appeal
before the Designated First Appellate Authority under Section 19 (1) of
the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this reply. The detail
of First Appellate Authority is as under:
Shri Suven Das Gupta,
First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner,
CGST & CX Hqrs, Central Revenue Building,
5A, Main Road, Ranchi - 834001
Phone No. 0651-2330982"
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, held as under:
"8. On going through the information provided/reply given by the CPIO, I
find that the CPIO has rejected to provide the information sought in
respect of point no. B and C of the RTI application dated 10.01.2024 in
terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, by giving reason that the
present case has not attained its finality.
I find that the Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII dated
09.08.1995 for the quarter ending October-December, 1992 issued to
M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and persons associated with it and Sri B.
Tudu, the then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central
Excise, Bokaro, has been transferred to Call Book as the Department has
filed a Reference Application before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court
against the order of CEGAT, Kolkata bearing No. A-967 to A-
970/Cal/2000 dated 13.07.2000. Since, the said show cause notice is
transferred to Call Book, the same has not been adjudicated till date and
hence it has not attained its finality till date.
For your kind reference, it is to bring to your notice that the said
Reference Application has been filed by the Department against the
CEGAT Order dated 13.07.2000, which was passed by the CEGAT, Kolkata
in respect of appeal filed by you against the Order-In-Appeal No. 42-
45/Pat/95 dated 31.10.1995.
9. I further observe that apart from filing the instant RTI appeal, the
appellant also has requested Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi vide
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245
Page 3 of 28
letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and
24.02.2024 to provide certified copies of Show Cause notices mentioned
in table below -
Sr. Show Cause Notice No. & date Period
No.
1 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII/4063 July-Sept., 1992
dated 09.08.1995
2 V(15)35-CEP/94 dated 17.07.1995 July-Sept. 1990
3 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.II dated Jan-March, 1991
09.08.1995
4 V(35)-CEP/94 April-Sept., 1992
5 V(35)35-CEP/94/P.VIII dated Oct-Dec., 1992
09.08.1995
He has also requested to provide copies of replies to show cause notices
submitted by them, copies of complete note sheet and all other papers.
9.1 In this regard, I find that the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX.
Ranchi has partially accepted the request of appellant and ordered to
provide the copies of show cause notices and replies to show cause
notices submitted by the Noticee only. I further find that the
jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX., Deoghar Division vide
this office letter F. NO. GEXCOM/TECH/MISC/1030/2024-TECH/1800
dated 14.03.2024, has already been directed accordingly to provide
copies of Show cause notices mentioned in the table above and replies
submitted by you.
10. I further observe that the appellant in his present appeal, has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s
Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST
& CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022, and argued that show
cause notices which are more than 5 years old should be considered
closed by the department. As in his case, show cause notice is more than
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245
Page 4 of 28
28 years old, there is no justification in considering the department that
the case is still alive.
I have also observed that during personal hearing, the appellant has
stated that that Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the show
cause Notice dated 24.12.2014 issued to the petitioner due to non-
adjudication of show cause notice for more than 07 years. That the
Department has not filed appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court, which means that the Department has accepted
the said order of Hon'ble High Court. That if a show cause notice, which
was issued seven years ago, has been quashed then the show cause
notice issued to him should also be considered quashed as it has been
twenty-eight years.
10.1 In this regard, I have gone through the order dated 09.10.2023 of
Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya
Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and
others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022 and I observe that the appeal of the
petitioner has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the show
cause notice issued to the petitioner.
However, the argument of the appellant during personal hearing on
22.03.2024 that the Department has not filed the appeal against the said
order, which means that the Department has accepted the said order
and therefore, in his case also, the show cause notices issued to him
should be considered as quashed, is not acceptable as I find that the
Department has not accepted the said order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble
High Court and filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against
the said order dated 09.10.2023 is under process.
11. In view of above facts & circumstances of the case, the information
provided by the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Hqrs),
Ranchi vide letter F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/233/2024-TECH dated
13.02.2024 in respect of Point No. B & C to the appellant that "the
information sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated
10.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act,
2005, as the present case has not attained its finality" is justified in the
eyes of law.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245
Page 5 of 28
However, since the Principal Commissioner, COST & CX. Ranchi with
reference to letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024,
23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 has ordered to provide the copies of Show
cause Notices mentioned in para 9 above and replies submitted by the
Noticee against the said show cause notices only, the same can be
provided to the appellant. Accordingly, I order the jurisdictional Assistant
Commissioner, COST & CX. Deoghar Division to provide the same to the
appellant on payment of requisite fee, if any.
ORDER
12. In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant appeal filed vide RTI Appeal No. GG/124/8476/2024 dated 23.02.2024 by Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director of M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar is disposed off, accordingly."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.02.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 27.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.07.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(A) Your Patna office had issued Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/94 for the quarter April-September-1992 to M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and persons associated with it and "Sri B. Tudu, The then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise, Bokaro".
(B) Kindly send me copy of full note sheet of this file No. V(15)35-CEP/94.
(C) Kindly send me copy of each paper in the file. CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 6 of 28 (D) Kindly let me know full address with phone and fax No. of the 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act, so that I may file appeal against your goodself's order, if I am not satisfied with the order or if no reply is received within 30 days."
6. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, the information sought for in respect of RTI application Ref No. GP/124/11302/2024 dated 09.01.2024 is as under:
Point No. A - Not applicable Point No. B to Point No. C: The Information sought by you vide above mentioned RTI application dated 09.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality.
Point No. D If you are not satisfied with this reply, you can file an appeal before the Designated First Appellate Authority under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this reply. The detail of First Appellate Authority is as under:
Shri Suven Das Gupta, First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi - 834001 Phone No. 0651-2330982"
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, held as under:
"8. On going through the information provided/reply given by the CPIO, I find that the CPIO has rejected to provide the information sought in respect of point no. B and C of the RTI application dated 09.01.2024 in CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 7 of 28 terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, by giving reason that the present case has not attained its finality.
I find that the Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/94 for the quarter ending April-September, 1992 issued to M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and persons associated with it and Sri B. Tudu, the then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise Bokaro, has been transferred to Call Book as the Department has filed a Reference Application before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court against the order of CEGAT, Kolkata bearing No. A-967 to A-970/Cal/2000 dated 13.07.2000. Since, the said show cause notice is transferred to Call Book, the same has not been adjudicated till date and hence it has not attained its finality till date.
For your kind reference, it is to bring to your notice that the said Reference Application has been filed by the Department against the CEGAT Order dated 13.07.2000, which was passed by the CEGAT, Kolkata in respect of appeal filed by you against the Order-In-Appeal No. 42- 45/Pat/95 dated 31.10.1995.
9. I further observe that apart from filing the instant RTI appeal, the appellant also has requested Commissioner, CGST& CX. Ranchi vide letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 to provide certified copies of Show Cause notices mentioned in table below -
Sr. No. Show Cause Notice No. & date Period
1 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII/4063 dated July-Sept., 1992
09.08.1995
2 V(15)35-CEP/94 dated 17.07.1995 July-Sept. 1990
3 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.II dated Jan-March, 1991
09.08.1995
4 V(35)-CEP/94 April-Sept., 1992
5 V(35)35-CEP/94/P.VIII dated Oct-Dec., 1992
09.08.1995
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 8 of 28 He has also requested to provide copies of replies to show cause notices submitted by them, copies of complete note sheet and all other papers.
9.1 In this regard, I find that the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi has partially accepted the request of appellant and ordered to provide the copies of show cause notices and replies to show cause notices submitted by the Noticee only. I further find that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX., Deoghar Division vide this office letter F. NO. GEXCOM/TECH/MISC/1030/2024-TECH/1800 dated 14.03.2024, has already been directed accordingly to provide copies of Show cause notices mentioned in the table above and replies submitted by you.
10. I further observe that the appellant in his present appeal, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022, and argued that show cause notices which are more than 5 years old should be considered closed by the department. As in his case, show cause notice is more than 28 years old, there is no justification in considering the department that the case is still alive.
I have also observed that during personal hearing, the appellant has stated that that Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the show cause Notice dated 24.12.2014 issued to the petitioner due to non- adjudication of show cause notice for more than 07 years. That the Department has not filed appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, which means that the Department has accepted the said order of Hon'ble High Court. That if a show cause notice, which was issued seven years ago, has been quashed then the show cause notice issued to him should also be considered quashed as it has been twenty-eight years.
10.1 In this regard, I have gone through the order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022 and I observe that the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 9 of 28 However, the argument of the appellant during personal hearing on 22.03.2024 that the Department has not filed the appeal against the said order, which means that the Department has accepted the said order and therefore, in his case also, the show cause notices issued to him should be considered as quashed, is not acceptable as I find that the Department has not accepted the said order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble High Court and filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order dated 09.10.2023 is under process.
11. In view of above facts & circumstances of the case, the information provided by the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Hqrs), Ranchi vide letter F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/234/2024-TECH dated 13.02.2024 in respect of Point No. B & C to the appellant that "the information sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated 09.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality" is justified in the eyes of law.
However, since the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi with reference to letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 has ordered to provide the copies of Show cause Notices mentioned in para 9 above and replies submitted by the Noticee against the said show cause notices only, the same can be provided to the appellant. Accordingly, I order the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Deoghar Division to provide the same to the appellant after payment of requisite fee, if any.
ORDER
12. In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant appeal filed vide RTI Appeal No. GG/124/8472/2024 dated 23.02.2024 by Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director of M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar is disposed off, accordingly."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 10 of 28 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.02.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 27.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.07.2024 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(A) Your Patna office had issued Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-
CEP/94/Pt.II dt. 09.08.1995 for the quarter January-March-1991 to M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and persons associated with it and "Sri B. Tudu, The then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise, Bokaro".
(B) Kindly send me copy of full note sheet of this file No. V(15)35- CEP/94/Pt.II.
(C) Kindly send me copy of each paper in the file.
(D) Kindly let me know full address with phone and fax No. of the 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act, so that I may file appeal against your goodself's order, if I am not satisfied with the order or if no reply is received within 30 days."
10. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, the information sought for in respect of RTI application Ref No. GP/124/11301/2024 dated 08.01.2024 is as under:
Point No. A - Not applicable CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 11 of 28 Point No. B to Point No. C: The Information sought by you vide above mentioned RTI application dated 08.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality.
Point No. D If you are not satisfied with this reply, you can file an appeal before the Designated First Appellate Authority under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this reply. The detail of First Appellate Authority is as under:
Shri Suven Das Gupta, First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi - 834001 Phone No. 0651-2330982"
11. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, held as under:
"8. On going through the information provided/reply given by the CPIO, I find that the CPIO has rejected to provide the information sought in respect of point no. B and C of the RTI application dated 08.01.2024 in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, by giving reason that the present case has not attained its finality.
I find that the Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.II dated 09.08.1995 for the quarter ending January March, 1991 issued to M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and persons associated with it and Sri B. Tudu, the then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise Bokaro, has been transferred to Call Book as the Department has filed a Reference Application before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court against the order of CEGAT, Kolkata bearing No. A-967 to A-970/Cal/2000 dated 13.07.2000. Since, the said show cause notice is transferred to Call Book, the said show cause notice has not been adjudicated till date and hence it has not attained its finality till date.
For your kind reference, it is to bring to your notice that the said Reference Application has been filed by the Department against the CEGAT Order dated 13.07.2000, which was passed by the CEGAT, Kolkata CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 12 of 28 in respect of appeal filed by you against the Order-In-Appeal No. 42- 45/Pat/95 dated 31.10.1995.
9. I further observe that apart from filing the instant RTI appeal, the appellant also has requested Commissioner, CGST& CX. Ranchi vide letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 to provide certified copies of Show Cause notices mentioned in table below -
Sr. No. Show Cause Notice No. & date Period
1 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII/4063 dated July-Sept., 1992
09.08.1995
2 V(15)35-CEP/94 dated 17.07.1995 July-Sept. 1990
3 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.II dated 09.08.1995 Jan-March, 1991
4 V(35)-CEP/94 April-Sept., 1992
5 V(35)35-CEP/94/P.VIII dated 09.08.1995 Oct-Dec., 1992
He has also requested to provide copies of replies to show cause notices submitted by them, copies of complete note sheet and all other papers.
9.1 In this regard, I find that the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi has partially accepted the request of appellant and ordered to provide the copies of show cause notices and replies to show cause notices submitted by the Noticee only. I further find that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX., Deoghar Division vide this office letter F. NO. GEXCOM/TECH/MISC/1030/2024-TECH/1800 dated 14.03.2024, has already been directed accordingly to provide copies of Show cause notices mentioned in the table above and replies submitted by you.
10. I further observe that the appellant in his present appeal, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022, and argued that show cause notices which are more than 5 years old should be considered CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 13 of 28 closed by the department. As in his case, show cause notice is more than 28 years old, there is no justification in considering the department that the case is still alive.
I have also observed that during personal hearing, the appellant has stated that that Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the show cause Notice dated 24.12.2014 issued to the petitioner due to non- adjudication of show cause notice for more than 07 years. That the Department has not filed appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, which means that the Department has accepted the said order of Hon'ble High Court. That if a show cause notice, which was issued seven years ago, has been quashed then the show cause notice issued to him should also be considered quashed as it has been twenty-eight years.
10.1 In this regard, I have gone through the order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of COST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022 and 1 observe that the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
However, the argument of the appellant during personal hearing on 22.03.2024 that the Department has not filed the appeal against the said order, which means that the Department has accepted the said order and therefore, in his case also, the show cause notices issued to him should be considered as quashed, is not acceptable as I find that the Department has not accepted the said order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble High Court and filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order dated 09.10.2023 is under process.
11. In view of above facts & circumstances of the case, the information provided by the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Hqrs), Ranchi vide letter F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/232/2024-TECH dated 13.02.2024 in respect of Point No. B & C to the appellant that "the information sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated 08.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality" is justified in the eyes of law.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 14 of 28 However, since the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi with reference to letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024. 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 has ordered to provide the copies of Show cause Notices mentioned in para 9 above and replies submitted by the Noticee against the said show cause notices only, the same can be provided to the appellant. Accordingly, I order the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX. Deoghar Division to provide the same to the appellant on payment of requisite fee, if any.
ORDER
12. In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant appeal filed vide RTI Appeal No. GG/124/8473/2024 dated 23.02.2024 by Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director of M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar is disposed off, accordingly."
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.02.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 27.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.07.2024 Information sought:
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(A) Your Patna office had issued Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/94 dt. 17.07.1995 for the quarter July-Sept.-1990 to (i) M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and (ii) persons associated with M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker and (iii) "Sri B. Tudu, the then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise, Bokaro".
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 15 of 28 (B) Kindly send me copy of full note sheet of this file i.e. file No. V(15)35- CEP/94.
(C) Kindly also send me copy of each paper in the file.
(D) Kindly let me know full address with phone and fax No. of the 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act, so that I may file appeal against your goodself's order, if I am not satisfied with the order or if no reply is received within 30 days."
14. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, the information sought for in respect of RTI application Ref No. GP/124/11300/2024 dated 07.01.2024 is as under:
Point No. A - Not applicable Point No. B to Point No. C: The Information sought by you vide above mentioned RTI application dated 07.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality.
Point No. D- If you are not satisfied with this reply, you can file an appeal before the Designated First Appellate Authority under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this reply. The detail of First Appellate Authority is as under:
Shri Suven Das Gupta, First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Phone No. 0651-2330982"
15. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, held as under:
"8. On going through the information provided/reply given by the CPIO, I find that the CPIO has rejected to provide the information sought in respect of point no. B and C of the RTI application dated 07.01.2024 in CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 16 of 28 terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, by giving reason that the present case has not attained its finality.
I find that the Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/941 dated 17.07.1995 for the quarter ending July-Sept.-1990 issued to (i) M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and (ii) persons associated with M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker and (iii) Sri B. Tudu, the then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise, Bokaro, has been transferred to Call Book as the Department has filed a Reference Application before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court against the order of CEGAT, Kolkata bearing No. A- 967 to A-970/Cal/2000 dated 13.07.2000. Since, the said show cause notice is transferred to Call ..the same has not been adjudicated till date and hence it has not attained its finality till date.
For your kind reference, it is to bring to your notice that the said Reference Application has been filed by the Department against the CEGAT Order dated 13.07.2000, which was passed by the CEGAT, Kolkata in respect of appeal filed by you against the Order-in-Appeal No. 42- 45/Pat/95 dated 31.10.1995.
9. I further observe that apart from filing the instant RTI appeal, the appellant also has requested Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi vide letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 to provide certified copies of Show Cause notices mentioned in table below -
Sr. No. Show Cause Notice No. & date Period
1 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII/4063 dated July-Sept., 1992
09.08.1995
2 V(15)35-CEP/94 dated 17.07.1995 July-Sept. 1990
3 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.II dated Jan-March, 1991
09.08.1995
4 V(35)-CEP/94 April-Sept., 1992
5 V(35)35-CEP/94/P.VIII dated Oct-Dec., 1992
09.08.1995
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 17 of 28 He has also requested to provide copies of replies to show cause notices submitted by them, copies of complete note sheet and all other papers.
9.1 In this regard, I find that the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi has partially accepted the request of appellant and ordered to provide the copies of show cause notices and replies to show cause notices submitted by the Noticee only. I further find that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX., Deoghar Division vide this office letter F. NO. GEXCOM/TECH /MISC/1030/2024-TECH/1800 dated 14.03.2024, has already been directed accordingly to provide copies of Show cause notices mentioned in the table above and replies submitted by you.
10. I further observe that the appellant in his present appeal, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022, and argued that show cause notices which are more than 5 years old should be considered closed by the department. As in his case, show cause notice is more than 28 years old, there is no justification in considering the department that the case is still alive.
I have also observed that during personal hearing, the appellant has stated that that Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the show cause Notice dated 24.12.2014 issued to the petitioner due to non- adjudication of show cause notice for more than 07 years. That the Department has not filed appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, which means that the Department has accepted the said order of Hon'ble High Court. That if a show cause notice, which was issued seven years ago, has been quashed then the show cause notice issued to him should also be considered quashed as it has been twenty-eight years.
10.1 In this regard, I have gone through the order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022 and 1 observe that the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 18 of 28 However, the argument of the appellant during personal hearing on 22.03.2024 that the Department has not filed the appeal against the said order, which means that the Department has accepted the said order and therefore, in his case also, the show cause notices issued to him should be considered as quashed, is not acceptable as I find that the Department has not accepted the said order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble High Court and filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order dated 09.10.2023 is under process.
11. In view of above facts & circumstances of the case, the information provided by the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Hqrs), Ranchi vide letter F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/231/2024-TECH dated 13.02.2024 in respect of Point No. B & C to the appellant that "the information sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated 07.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality is justified in the eyes of law.
However, since the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi with reference to letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 has ordered to provide the copies of Show cause Notices mentioned in para 9 above and replies submitted by the Noticee against the said show cause notices only, the same can be provided to the appellant. Accordingly, I order the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, COST & CX. Deoghar Division to provide the same to the appellant on payment of requisite fee, if any.
ORDER
12. In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant appeal filed vide RTI Appeal No. GG/124/8474/2024 dated 23.02.2024 by Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director of M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar is disposed off, accordingly."
16. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 19 of 28 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.02.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 27.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.07.2024 Information sought:
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"(A) Your Patna office had issued Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-
CEP/94/pt. VIII/4063 dt. 09.08.1995 for the quarter July-Sep. 1992 to (i) M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and (ii) persons associated with M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker and (iii) "Sri B. Tudu, The then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise, Bokaro".
(B) Kindly send me copy of full note sheet of this file i.e. file No. V(15)35- CEP/94/Pt. VIII/4063.
(C) Kindly also send me copy of each paper in the file.
(F) Kindly let me know full address with phone and fax No. of the 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act, so that I may file appeal against your goodself's order, if I am not satisfied with the order or if no reply is received within 30 days."
18. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:
"In this regard, the information sought for in respect of RTI application Ref No. GP/124/11299/2024 dated 06.01.2024 is as under:
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 20 of 28 Point No. A- Not applicable Point No. B to Point No. C: The Information sought by you vide above mentioned RTI application dated 06.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality.
Point No. D -If you are not satisfied with this reply, you can file an appeal before the Designated First Appellate Authority under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 within thirty days of the receipt of this reply. The detail of First Appellate Authority is as under:
Shri Suven Das Gupta, First Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX Hqrs, Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi - 834001 Phone No. 0651-2330982"
19. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, held as under:
"8. On going through the information provided/reply given by the CPIO, I find that the CPIO has rejected to provide the information sought in respect of point no. B and C of the RTI application dated 06.01.2024 in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, by giving reason that the present case has not attained its finality.
I find that the Show Cause Notice No. V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII/4063 dated 09.08.1995 for the quarter ending July-Sept., 1992 issued to (i) M/s Gillooram Gaurishankar and (ii) persons associated with M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker and (iii) "Sri B. Tudu, the then Range Officer, Deoghar, now Superintendent Central Excise, Bokaro, has been transferred to Call Book as the Department has filed a Reference Application before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court against the order of CEGAT, Kolkata bearing No. A- 967 to A-970/Cal/2000 dated 13.07.2000. Since, the said show cause notice is transferred to Call Book, the same has not been adjudicated till date and hence it has not attained its finality till date.
For your kind reference, it is to bring to your notice that the said Reference Application has been filed by the Department against the CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 21 of 28 CEGAT Order dated 13.07.2000, which was passed by the CEGAT, Kolkata in respect of appeal filed by you against the Order-In -Appeal No. 42- 45/Pat/95 dated 31.10.1995.
9. I further observe that apart from filing the instant RTI appeal, the appellant also has requested Commissioner, CGST& CX. Ranchi vide letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 to provide certified copies of Show Cause notices mentioned in table below -
Sr. No. Show Cause Notice No. & date Period
1 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.VIII/4063 July-Sept., 1992
dated 09.08.1995
2 V(15)35-CEP/94 dated July-Sept. 1990
17.07.1995
3 V(15)35-CEP/94/Pt.II dated Jan-March, 1991
09.08.1995
4 V(35)-CEP/94 April-Sept., 1992
5 V(35)35-CEP/94/P.VIII dated Oct-Dec., 1992
09.08.1995
He has also requested to provide copies of replies to show cause notices submitted by them, copies of complete note sheet and all other papers.
9.1 In this regard, I find that the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi has partially accepted the request of appellant and ordered to provide the copies of show cause notices and replies to show cause notices submitted by the Noticee only. I further find that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX., Deoghar Division vide this office letter F. NO. GEXCOM/TECH/MISC/1030/2024-TECH/1800 dated 14.03.2024, has already been directed accordingly to provide copies of Show cause notices mentioned in the table above and replies submitted by you.
CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 22 of 28
10. I further observe that the appellant in his present appeal, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022, and argued that show cause notices which are more than 5 years old should be considered closed by the department. As in his case, show cause notice is more than 28 years old, there is no justification in considering the department that the case is still alive.
I have also observed that during personal hearing, the appellant has stated that that Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the show cause Notice dated 24.12.2014 issued to the petitioner due to non- adjudication of show cause notice for more than 07 years. That the Department has not filed appeal against the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, which means that the Department has accepted the said order of Hon'ble High Court. That if a show cause notice, which was issued seven years ago, has been quashed then the show cause notice issued to him should also be considered quashed as it has been twenty-eight years.
10.1 In this regard, I have gone through the order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of M/s Kamaladitya Construction (P) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX. and others in W.P.(T) No. 2890 of 2022 and I observe that the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
However, the argument of the appellant during personal hearing on 22.03.2024 that the Department has not filed the appeal against the said order, which means that the Department has accepted the said order and therefore, in his case also, the show cause notices issued to him should be considered as quashed, is not acceptable as I find that the Department has not accepted the said order dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble High Court and filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order dated 09.10.2023 is under process.
11. In view of above facts & circumstances of the case, the information provided by the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Hqrs), Ranchi vide letter F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/235/2024-TECH dated 13.02.2024 in respect of Point No. B & C to the appellant that "the CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 23 of 28 information sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated 06.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as the present case has not attained its finality" is justified in the eyes of law.
However, since the Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX. Ranchi with reference to letters dated 20.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 has ordered to provide the copies of Show cause Notices mentioned in para 9 above and replies submitted by the Noticee against the said show cause notices only, the same can be provided to the appellant. Accordingly, I order the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX. Deoghar Division to provide the same to the appellant on payment of requisite fee, if any.
ORDER
12. In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant appeal filed vide RTI Appeal No. GG/124/8475/2024 dated 23.02.2024 by Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director of M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar is disposed off, accordingly."
20. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO, appeared through video conference.
21. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 03.07.2024 is available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
22. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 16.03.2026 in all cases disclosing complete facts of the case, copies of the same along with enclosures CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 24 of 28 are marked to the Appellant and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras or crux of the written submission are reproduced as under
1) "It is humbly submitted that the 1st Appellate Authority, Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi passed an order OIA NO.RAN/06/2024 dt. 27-02.2024 consequent to the First appeal filed by Mr. Govind Prasad Dalmia, against the RTI dated 10.01.2024 and ordered at para 11 " In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, the information provided by the CPIO cum Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (Hqrs), Ranchi vide letter F. No. GEXCOM/RTI/APP/231/2024-TECH dated 13.02.2024 in respect of Point No. B & C to the appellant that "the information sought by the appellant vide RTI application dated 07.01.2024 cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 , as the present case has not attained its finality" is justified in the eyes of law.
However, since the Principal Commissioner, CGDT & CX, Ranchi with reference to letter dated 20.02.2024,21.02.2024,22.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 has ordered to provide the copies of Show Cause Notices only, the same can be provided to the appellant. Accordingly, I order jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX Deoghar Division to provide the same to the appellant on payment of requisite fee, if any."
Complying to this the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX Deoghar Division communicated to the appellant vide C. No.V(30)02/RTI/CGST & CX/DGR-I/17-18/678 dated 03.05.2024 informing that the six SCNs for various periods are available total pages 248 (SCN) and pages 143 (replies), with request to deposit an amount of Rs.782/- (@ Rs.2/- per page i.e. 391) through postal order or demand draft, so that the copies of the same may be sent (copy enclosed as Annexure 'A').
In response to the letter dated 03.05.2024 the applicant Mr. Govind Prasad Dalmia, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar, Jharkhand filed again RTI dated 17.05.2024 before CPIO Deoghar, wherein stated that " I further write that if within 30 days from the order dt.27.03.2024 of the CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 25 of 28 Additional Commissioner, if the papers are sent to me, I am ready to pay @ Rs.2 per page mentioned under section 7(I) and section 7(6) of RTI Act. If the same are sent to us beyond this prescribed period of 30 days then you should supply to us free of cost (copy enclosed as Annexure 'B')."
In reply to the above RTI, the CPIO-cum- Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX Deoghar Division vide C.No.V(30)02/RTI/CGST & CX/DGR-I/17-18/747 dated 30.05.2024 intimated to Mr. Govind Prasad Dalmia that "copy of order dated 27.03.2024 of the first appellant authority received on 09.04.2024. In compliance to the said order, letter dated 03.05.2024 was issued within 30 days asking the appellant to pay the requisite fee (copy enclosed as Annexure 'C')."
It is evident from the records that the applicant, Shri G.P. Dalmia did not deposit amount as communicated by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Deoghar vide letter dated 03.05.2024 and also did not prefer appeal to the First Appellate Authority against their RTI application dated 17.05.2024 filed before CPIO Deoghar.
From the above, it appears that the applicant Shri G.P. Dalmia was not willing to procure the copy of the documents mentioned supra.
It is pertinent to mention that the applicant of RTI Application and Appeals i. e. Shri G. P. Dalmia is one of the Director of the firm M/s Gilloram Gaurishankar, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112.
2. Further, it is pertinent to mention and humbly submitted that all the SCNs were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C. Ex., Deoghar vide O-I-O 02/C.EX/AC/Deoghar/2024 dated 27.08.2024.
Against these O-I-Os, M/s Gilloram Gaurishankar, Shahid Ashram Road, Baidyanath, Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112 preferred Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CX. Ranchi and the Commissioner Appeals, CGST & Cx Ranchi vide 64/RAN/2025 DT.20.3.2025 rejected the appeal on merit and limitation as well.
Further, it is humbly submitted that the Applicant preferred appeal before CESTAT against the O-I-As and requested for early hearing of these appeals. The Hon'ble CESTAT vide order dated 26.02.2026 dismissed the early hearing application as the Hon'ble Apex Court has CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 26 of 28 directed all the authorities below to maintain Status Quo till a decision in the case of "M/s GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd." is passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
This is submitted for kind consideration by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner."
Decision:
23. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant did not appear for the hearing despite due service of notice. The Commission further notes that the Appellant had sought adjournment of the hearing; however, no reasonable or justified grounds were provided in support of such request. In view of the absence of any cogent reasons for seeking adjournment, the Commission did not find it appropriate to accede to the said request and proceeded to hear the matter on merits based on the available records and the submissions as available in the e-book.
24. The Commission also observes from the records that the Respondent had raised an intimation under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act, calling upon the Appellant to deposit the requisite additional fee for providing the requested information. However, the Appellant failed to comply with the said requirement and did not deposit the additional fee within the stipulated time.
25. It is pertinent to note that under the provisions of the RTI Act, once an intimation of further fee is duly issued by the CPIO, the onus shifts upon the Applicant to deposit the prescribed fee to enable processing and supply of the information. Non-payment of such fee disentitles the Applicant from receiving the information and the Respondent cannot be held responsible for non-
supply in such circumstances.
26. In the present case, the Appellant neither complied with the fee requirement nor availed the opportunity of hearing to contest the submissions of the Respondent. Consequently, the submissions made by the Respondent remain uncontroverted. The Commission finds that there is no infirmity in the CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 27 of 28 action of the Respondent and no mala fide can be attributed to the denial of information. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that intervention is warranted in these cases under the RTI Act.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, 5A, Central Revenue Building, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ranchi - 834001 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122857, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122858, CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122855 CIC/CCCER/A/2024/122856 and CIC/CCCER/A/2024/123245 Page 28 of 28 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)