TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide his application dated 8-4-2009, sought the following information from the CPIO, Delhi-I : (A) Details and copy of the following information, documents, notices, correspondences, records, notes & proceedings, manuscripts and reports in relation to :- (i) Order-in-Original No. 27-29/2004, dated 31-8-2004. (ii) Order-in-Original issued consequent to Remand Order of CESTAT F.No. 237-241/2008, dated 2-5-2008 [2008 (229) E.L.T. 240 (Tribunal)] (Diwan Saheb Fashions Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi-1). (B) Copies of all show Cause Notices, corrigendum, and response received thereto. (C) List of date of hearing fixed from date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 3. Appellant's application was considered by the CPIO, Central Excise, Delhi-I but he rejected the same as under, vide order/letter C. No. IV (16)/424/CE/RTI/Tech./D-I/08, dated 6-5-2009 :- "In this context, it is intimated to you that the information sought by you cannot be provided to you as the information contained in the file is in the capacity of fiduciary relation between the department and M/s. Diwan Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. Further, the said file also contains information related to M/s. Diwan Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. which is a third party. Since no larger public interest is involved which warrants the disclosure of information sought by the applicant, exemption is, therefore sought under section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (v) that since the case relates to the evasion of taxes, it is in the larger public interest to disclose the informaaton and the citizen has every right to know that the powers conferred on the officers are being properly and honestly exercised without any fear or favour to any body. If the information is not disclosed, it will make the entire action of the Department suspicious in the eye of the public; (vi) that the CPIO in his impugned order has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, stating that no public interest or public activity is involved which warrants disclosure of information. The information sought by the appellant relates to a case where not only huge public ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CPIO has also rejected the application of the appellant on the ground that information sought is also exempted under section 8(1)(j), which reads as under : "(j) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. (ix) that the information sought by the appellant is not covered by the aforesaid exemption since the informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that denial of request is justified is on the CPIO who has neither replied to the appeal nor is present at hearing, hence he has not discharged his burden. The information sought is not exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) as stated in the appeal. 7. As required under Section 19(5) of the RTl Act, the CPIO was asked, vide fetter dated 24-6-09, to discharge his onus to prove that denial of information was justified. A copy of the appeal of the appellant was, therefore, sent to CPIO, Delhi-I for comments. Since the issue in this case pertains to the Adjudication branch of the Comrmssionerate, the CPIO forwarded the appeal to the Asst.. Commissioner (Adjudication). In the comments received vide letter C.No. V(62)15-CE/D-l/Adj/3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is held in trust between two or more persons. In this case of M/s. Diwan Saheb Fashions P. Ltd., I don't find anything deposed in trust by this party with the adjudicating authority. Nor they ever claimed any exemption on this ground before the adjudicating authority. Withholding of information in such cases of duty evasion in the garb of fiduciary relationship unnecessarily casts suspicion on the working of public authorities and undermines transparency required in carrying out quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the appellant, the adjudication of show cause notice for evasion of tax can by no stretch of imagination be treated as in the capacity of fiduciary relationship between the Department and the noticee. The....