Central Information Commission
Ganesh Behal vs Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate ... on 31 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CESAT/A/2022/109682
Ganesh Behal ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Deputy Registrar, Customs,
Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chandigarh, RTI Cell,
SCO 147-148, Sector-17C,
Chandigarh. .... ितवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/01/2023
Date of Decision : 30/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/02/2021
First appeal filed on : 15/09/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 25/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.02.2021 seeking the following information:
01. Whether the revenue department can issue summons to appear in the inquiry under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demand the 1 differential duty under the Notification No. 14/200 from the assesse in terms of the order of the Ld. CESTAT. Further the common order of the Ld. CESTAT dated -06.05.2010 was itself merely based upon the Ld. CESTAT's own decision rendered in Auro Textiles versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. Though the judgement dated 04.03.2016 pronouncement by the Supreme Court of India wherein the decision of the Ld. CESTAT case itself set side. As such, the very basis of the common order dated 05.05.2010 passed by Ld. CESTAT was taken away and hence the order dated 06.05.2010 was itself rendered no-set.
02. Kindly inform the present existing status in speaking words about the decision dt. 06.05.2010 with respect to the Notification No. 14/2002 as and when after the pronouncement of the judgment dt. 04.03.2016 to the mentioned subject matter of Notification No. 14/2002 by the Supreme Court of India' The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.11.2021 stating as under: (Reply to be corrected) "....In this connection it is to inform you that Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (In short, CESTAT) was created to hear the appeals against order passed by the commissioners of customs, Excise and Service Tax under the customs Act 1962, Central Excise Act 1962, Central Excise Act 1944 and Finance Act 1994. The tribunal is the final Appellate Authority as far as Question of fact are Concerned.
xxx So far as information relating to operative para no. 2 is concerned i.e. existing status in speaking words about the common decision dated 06/01/2010 passed with respect to Notification No. 14/2002 after the pronouncement of the judgement dated 04/03/2016 by the Supreme Court is again a information of 'Legal advice' Nature and the undersigned has no authority to give such advice or comment of the Order/Judgement passed by CESTAT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
However, in this connection it is to inform you that as per this tribunal record the existing status of Appeal N o. E/1052-1055/2006 and E/1121- 1129/2066 has been decided vide this Tribunals Order No. 359-371/2010 dated 06/05/2010..."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2021. FAA's order dated 25.11.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Rohit Kumar Shukla, Deputy Registrar & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the impugned RTI Application stated that he has merely sought for clarification regarding as to whether the legal identity of Tribunal orders exists or not with respect to Notification no. 14/2002 after passing of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order on 04.03.2016 in Civil Appeal no. 1288/2005. In response to it, the Commission counselled the Appellant that the clarifications/ inferences sought by him entails deduction by the CPIO and therefore, does not falls under the ambit of information per se in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that it has already been intimated to the Appellant that CESTAT was created to hear the appeals against orders passed by the Commissioners of Customs, Excise and Service Tax under the Customs Act 1962, Central Excise Act 1962 and Finance Act 1994. The tribunal is the final Appellate Authority as far as questions of facts are concerned and not for drawing inferences or opinions/ interpretations/ clarifications as sought for in the instant RTI Application.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core premise of the instant Appeal was non receipt of the desired clarification in response to instant RTI Application. In response to it, the CPIO explained that a comprehensive detailed reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant.
In this regard, the Commission does not find any scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the reply of the CPIO's provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.3
Adverting to Appellant's insistence seeking clarifications as regards the legal existence of Notification no. 14/2002 after passing of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order on the same subject matter, it shall be noted that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
The Appellant's attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
4"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Having observed as above, no further intervention is warranted in the matter.
However, the CPIO is advised to ensure in future that the applicants should be categorically intimated that the information sought for do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु&)
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा(णत स)या*पत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
5