2009 (2) TMI 543 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act regarding copies of Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli.
2. Applicability of RTI Act, 2005 in providing access to quasi-judicial orders.
3. Lack of provision for issuing show cause notice or hearing under RTI Act, 2005.
4. Overriding effect of RTI Act, 2005 on other laws concerning disclosure of information.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought information under the RTI Act regarding copies of Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Tiruchirapalli. The CPIO denied this information citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, stating it exempted furnishing information that could harm the competitive position of a third party. The CPIO relied on a decision of the Hon'ble CIC to support this denial, emphasizing the nature of commercial confidence in such orders.

2. The appellant contended that the Orders-in-Appeal are quasi-judicial and subject to appeal to higher authorities. They argued that the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) was not applicable as the information was provided in response to proceedings under Central Excise or Service Tax Laws. The CPIO's decision was challenged based on the overriding effect of the RTI Act, 2005 on all other laws, emphasizing the public interest in transparency and accountability.

3. The CPIO clarified that the RTI Act, 2005 does not mandate issuing show cause notices or hearings before making decisions. The appellant's argument regarding lack of a show cause notice was deemed unsustainable under the Act. The CPIO maintained that the denial of information was justified under Section 8(1)(d) and supported by the decision of the Hon'ble CIC.

4. The judgment analyzed the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the absence of specific provisions in the Central Excise Act or rules regarding the supply of orders to parties not directly involved in the proceedings. It emphasized the public interest in disclosing quasi-judicial orders passed by public authorities like the Commissioner (Appeals) to promote transparency. The judgment concluded that the denial of information based on commercial confidence was not applicable in this case, directing the CPIO to provide the requested copies within 10 days.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies involved in the judgment, addressing each issue raised by the appellant and the CPIO in detail.