Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kuldeep Singh vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 28 November, 2025

                                          के ीय सूचना आयोग
                                 Central Information Commission
                                      बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                  Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                   नई िद      ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं         ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CBECE/A/2024/104577

 Kuldeep Singh                                                        ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                              VERSUS
                                               बनाम
 CPIO: Central Board of
 Indirect Taxes and Customs,                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 New Delhi

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 29.05.2023                  FA         : 20.09.2023            SA     : 08.02.2024

 CPIO : 29.08.2023                 FAO : 18.10.2023                   Hearing : 26.11.2025


Date of Decision: 27.11.2025
                                               CORAM:
                                         Hon'ble Commissioner
                                       _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                              ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

a) With ref to your L/No. F.No. A.260/17/98/2008-Ad II.A dtd 21/11/2008, please clarify if the ibid letter on Grant of NFFU was issued by your departmental internally or is it in consultation with/on based on any orders/directions/guidelines issued by DoPT, Gol. Please share copy of such guidelines of DoPT, Gol or the departmental case file resulting in the issue of said letter.

b) Is the said letter applicable to Group A officers also.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

a) Letter dated 21.11.2008 was issued in consultation with Department of Expenditure. Further, information regarding copy of guidelines or the departmental case file resulting in the issuance of said letter is not available with the CPIO as the concerned file bearing F.No 26017/98/2008-Ad.IIA is not traceable (copy enclosed).

b) Queries/clarification or interpretation of information sought by you does not fall within the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and hence, the same cannot be provided.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and advised the appellant to make a representation through proper channel to the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) to get the requisite clarification.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.02.2024.

5. The appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Avneesh Pratap Singh - CPIO/US and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar - ASO attended the hearing in person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the respondent, particularly because the second query raised by him has not been answered satisfactorily.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was duly informed that the Board's letter dated 21.11.2008 is self explanatory in so far as grant of NFU to eligible officer is concerned and was advised to make representations through proper channel to the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) to get the requisite clarification. On being probed by the Commission, the respondent volunteered to address the appellant's query number 2 outside the purview of the RTI Act.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the response sent by the CPIO is appropriate wherein information available on record with the public authority and permissible under the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to approach the respondent to seek answer to the query number 2, outside the ambit of the RTI Act. However no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.11.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, US & CPIO, (AD.IIA), North Block, New Delhi-110001 2 Kuldeep Singh Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)