Ascon Agro Products Ltd. vs Union of India

I.P. Mukerji, J.�There is one fundamental mistake that the Commissioner committed while passing the order dated 5th February, 2014. While dealing with the request of the writ petitioner for supply of copies of note-sheets, intra department correspondence, etc. pertaining to the investigation of the case, he referred to the Right to Information Act. He said that the application of the petitioner under the said Act and anticipation of its outcome could not stop the adjudication process. I take note of the fact that the Revenue has not relied upon those documents. Neither strictly speaking they can be called the petitioner''s documents which are in the custody of the Revenue, which might give a right to the petitioner to compel the Revenue to produce the documents.

In my opinion, the information under the Right to Information Act and its outcome have nothing to do with the disclosure of documents in a case. The Commissioner had to decide whether those documents which the writ petitioner wanted were to be disclosed to the writ petitioner at all or whether some of the documents could be disclosed. If those documents could not be made available to the writ petitioner, reasons therefore had to be given.

Thereafter, the Commissioner ought to have decided whether to give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to file an additional reply to the show cause notice.

He has disposed of the issue by the following finding:

"3.2 I find that noticee No. 2 has filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 for supply of the copies of note-sheet pages and correspondence pages of the investigation file relating to the issuance of the impugned show cause notice against the noticee. Purpose of having information is not required to be disclosed under RTI Act by an applicant, and, thus, noticee No. 2''s application under RTI Act cannot permit grace period to the noticee No. 1 for submission of final reply to the show cause notice and not even to the noticee No. 2, and adjournment for hearing cannot be sought for on that ground in a proceeding initiated under the Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder."

This finding is erroneous, as I have stated.

In those circumstances, the order of the Commissioner dated 5th February, 2014 is set aside with liberty to him to re-adjudicate the case according to the above observations.

Affidavits were not invited as all the relevant papers are before me, allegations, if any, contained in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.

This writ application is disposed of by the above order. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.