TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 924
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Appeal CEAC No. 16 of 2008 in the case of CCE, Delhi I v. Apex Recycling Pvt. Ltd., decided by Delhi High Court on 25-11-2008 : (A) Whether the said Appeal was withdrawn on the instructions of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I or any other Officer and if so, provide copy of such instructions and name of the Officer/Officers who have taken such decision to withdraw the said Appeal. (B) Copies of all note sheets and correspondences relating to the decision taken to withdraw the said Appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. (C) Whether the Department has filed or is filing any Special Leave Petition or Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court or have decided not to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nexplained withdrawal of the case before the Delhi High Court. 6. Appellant has questioned the decisions of the respondents especially of the Appellate Authority and has prayed that CIC critically examine the role of the Appellate Authority, who seems to have acted more as a departmental officer then as an arm of the Right to Information statute. 7. CPIO has filed before the Commission a brief account of the facts of the case before Delhi High Court in the appeal, Apex Recycling Private Limited, a copy of which is annexed to this order. 8. From what has been stated in the background note now furnished by the CPIO, it is not any more disputed that there was a case before the High Court of Delhi in CEAC No. 14-16/2008,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority was entirely flawed and was driven more by an urge not to disclose information than to dispassionately examine the request within the provisions of the RTI Act. 10. I also noticed that the Appellate Authority has taken the additional plea that parts of the file in which the subject documents were contained, originated in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which was an organization exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act. In this context, it is again surprising that Appellate Authority chose to apply Section 24 to the documents originating in the DRI without considering it necessary to refer it to DRI itself whether the letter had had any objection to their disclosure. It app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reason for the Appellate Authority to go ballistic against the appellant in his order. Appellant objected to Appellate Authority taking umbrage at appellant's observation based on nothing more than Appellate Authority's own belief that he had not come across "any such involvement of the departmental officers in abetting this sort of crime". Appellant argued that it was not open to the Appellate Authority to bring in his own understanding into play in passing his remarks against the point made by the appellant without giving to the appellant a chance to prove his point or to defend it. 14. I have taken note of the wholly unnecessary remarks made by the Appellate Authority in his First Appellate order. There was no reason whatsoever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant. 18. Upon perusing the records and on hearing the submissions of both parties, I do not wish to initiate Section 20 or Section 19(8)(b) proceeding in this matter. However, the CPIO and the Appellate Authority are well advised to deal with the RTI - applications and the first-appeals filed before them, dispassionately and strictly within the provisions of the RTI Act. 19. Complaint is closed at the Commission's level. 20. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties. Annexure Brief Facts of the case (M/s. Apex Recycling Pvt. Ltd.) A Case was investigated by the officers of DRI against M/s. Apex Recycling (P) Ltd. a 100% EOU engaged in recycling of imported f....