TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commission orders disclosure of former Commissioner's files for inspection; exemptions not applicable; appellant granted copying opportunity.</h1> <h3>RK. JAIN Versus DIRECTORATE GEN. OF VIGILANCE, CUS. & C. EX., NEW DELHI</h3> The Commission directed that the appellant be allowed inspection of the requested files and documents related to a former Commissioner of Central Excise, ... Right to Information - Vigilance case against Excise Customs Officer Issues involved: Interpretation of Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act in the context of disclosure of information related to a closed vigilance enquiry against a former Commissioner of Central Excise.Summary:The appellant filed an RTI application seeking details, inspection, and copies of information related to a former Commissioner of Central Excise, including vigilance case records. The CPIO provided a reply, and the Appellate Authority decided on the matter. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the requested information should be disclosed as the vigilance enquiry was closed, and there was no reason for non-disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) or 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Commission agreed with the appellant, noting that in completed enquiries, Section 8(1)(h) does not apply, and in this case, even Section 8(1)(g) was not applicable as similar information had been provided by the CBI. Consequently, the Commission directed that the appellant be allowed inspection of the requested files and documents, with the opportunity to take copies on payment of the prescribed fee. The appeal was disposed of with these directions, and the parties were to be informed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
