CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000157
Dated, the 29th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Gautam Kothari
Respondents : Central Excise & Customs Department
This second-appeal, which originated in appellant’s
RTI-application dated 05.05.2008, came up for hearing on 28.05.2009.
Both parties were present.
2. Earlier, Commission had directed in its order dated 21.11.2008
that the matter which was not heard by the Appellate Authority should
be considered by the Appellate Authority and a decision given on the
basis of the CPIO’s communication dated 28.05.2008 to the appellant.
Appellant claimed that he had taken this matter in first-appeal before
the Appellate Authority, Central Excise Hqrs., Indore through a
communication dated 03.06.2008, but the Appellate Authority failed to
give a decision in the appeal.
3. Following Commission’s above directive, the Appellate Authority,
Md.Irfan Ahmad considered the matter in first-appeal and in his order
dated 06.01.2009 ⎯ in which he also explained the reasons why he
could not consider the first-appeal earlier ⎯ he directed the CPIO to
furnish to the appellant cogent and accurate reply to his RTI-queries.
4. Following Appellate Authority’s directive, CPIO gave to the
appellant a reply on 16.01.2009.
5. Appellant’s RTI-application was about information regarding the
action taken on a petition he had earlier filed on 27.03.2008 before the
Customs authorities about possible service-tax evasion by certain
third-parties.
6. Now, CPIO in his reply to the appellant has informed him that
contrary to the appellant’s belief that action in the above matter was
taken or would have been taken on the basis of his above-mentioned
petition to the Service Tax Department, investigative action had already
commenced on the basis of the report received from the Service Tax
AT-29052009-16.doc
Page 1 of 2
Task Force Division, Indore even prior to the receipt of the appellant’s
complaint dated 27.03.2008.
7. During the hearing, CPIO stated that the investigation in this
matter is still pending and nothing at this stage can be disclosed to the
appellant as it would impede the process of the investigation, which
was current. He stated that a number of third-parties were under the
scanner in this investigation and witnesses were being examined and
intelligence gathered. If any information is disclosed at this stage, it
will have a deleterious impact on the ongoing investigation and,
therefore, demanded that no further information or documents be
disclosed to the appellant. He cited Section 8(1)(h) and Section 8(1)(g)
in support of his contention.
8. I find from the submissions that the information which appellant
wanted has been accurately disclosed to him through CPIO’s
communication to him dated 16.01.2009. I’m also in agreement with
the CPIO that when the investigative process is current, appellant
cannot be allowed access to the action as such intrusion had the
potentiality to impede the investigative process. Matters such as this
attract the bar under Section 8(1)(h) as well as Section 8(1)(g).
9. I, therefore, uphold the action of the CPIO.
10. Appeal fails. Closed.
11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-29052009-16.doc
Page 2 of 2