9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty-evasion, etc., for which the public authority has been created in the first place - appeal is allowed. - - - CIC/AT/A/2006/00656 - Dated:- 21-2-2007 - Shri A.N. Tiwari, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Kapil Dev Singla, Counsel, for the Appellant. CPIO, for the Respondent. [Order]. This is a second appeal filed by Shri Kuldeep Singh against the order dated 26-10-2006 of the Appellate Authority (AA), Shri D.S. Sra, Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The original RTI-request was made to the CPIO on 10-8-2006 and replied to by him on 20-9-2006. 2. Parties were called for a hearing on 9-2-2007. The appellant was represented by his counsel, Shri Kapil Dev Singla while the respondents were represented by the CPIO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) read with Schedule-II of the Act. Thus, information collected during raids by the DRI is not liable to be disclosed. 6. The AA upheld the conclusions of the CPIO adding that the information also attracted exemption of Section 8(1)(e). 7. The appellant s case is that the respondents have gone overboard with claim of exemption for the kind of information requested by him. It is the practice of several enforcement agencies such as the CBI, the Directorate of Enforcement including the DRI to widely publicize raids conducted by them as well as the names and other details of those raided . These agencies don t wait till the conclusion of the proceedings against those raided to disclose thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zures, but about party-wise levies at the end of adjudication of cases started after such searches and seizures, i.e. the end result of the proceedings started with searches and seizures. 11. This is pretty harmless information. Since it pertains to concluded/finalized adjudication proceedings following issuance of show-cause notices to parties, it cannot be said to prejudice the party s reputation, or its standing, through premature disclosure of information. Such information should be, and is, disclosed in the normal course. The respondents have erred in conjuring up all the manner of imaginary hardship to third parties and linking the information to exemption under Section 8(1). These provisions are not attracted to the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
