Customs Laws Referencer - Read the complete story .....

See Certified Copy of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC) Orders ITEM NO.MM-4A COURT NO.4 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 8 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1198 OF 2005 S.P. DUDEJA & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) Date: 30/03/2012 This Application was called on in mentioning Board today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE For Appellant(s) Mr. J.K. Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur,Adv.-on-Record For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv. Mr. S.C. Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv. for Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.-on-Record For Applicant(s) Ms. Indira Jai Singh, ASG Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv For Intervenor Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv.-on-Record Mr.Raj Kumar Parashar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Taken on Board. The application is dismissed. However, the time to implement the said order is extended by a further period of three months from today. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] Court Master [ Kusum Gulati ] Court Master [ Signed order is placed on the file ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No. 8 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005 S.P. Dudeja & Anr. .. Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. .. Respondent(s) O R D E R Taken on Board. Having heard Ms. Indra Jai Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of the view that order dated 3rd August, 2011 does not warrant any modification/clarification. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, the time to implement the said order is extended by a further period of three months from today. ...................... [ D.K. JAIN, J. ] ...................... [ ANIL R. DAVE, J. ] NEW DELHI, MARCH 30, 2012. ITEM NO.102(PH) COURT NO.5 SECTION IX/X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005 S.P. DUDEJA & ORS. ............................... Appellant (s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ............................ Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for appropriate order/direction and directions and impleadment) WITH W.P(C) NO. 385 of 2010 (With appln(s) for stay and impleadment and directions and intervention and with office report) Date: 03/08/2011 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY For Appellant(s) C.A. No. 1198/05 Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv. Mr. J.K. Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Avijeet Bhujabal, Adv. Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur,Adv. W.P.(C)385/10 & impleading party/applicant in C.A. No.1198/05 Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) rr 4 & 5 in Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv. C.A.1198/05 Ms. Udita Singh, Adv. r-6 in CA 1198/05 Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv Mr. Vibhor Verdhan, Adv. r-1 in Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. C.A.1198/05 Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shailender Saini, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv Intervener/applicant in W.P.325/10 Mr. Sajith P. Warrier, Adv. Mr. P.D. Baby John, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No.7 in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005 is allowed and the amended memo of parties filed along with the said application is taken on record. The civil appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in terms of the signed order. All other applications are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (VINOD LAKHINA) Court Master (KUSUM GULATI) Court Master (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005 S.P. DUDEJA & ORS. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 385 OF 2010 VIMAL KUMAR & ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER I.A. No.7 in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005 is allowed and the amended memo of parties filed along with the said application is taken on record. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2010. It has been brought to our notice that the Union of India in terms of our previous order/directions dated 22nd November, 2010 and 06th December, 2010, has filed an affidavit in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005, inter alia, stating, that it has initiated the process of reviewing the Recruitment Rules, 1987 for promotion from Group 'B' posts to Group 'A' posts. The entire scheme is being re-looked and worked out at the departmental level in consultation with an expert body including the Department of Personnel and the entire process is likely to be completed by 31st December, 2011. In the aforesaid background, we deem it proper and in the interest of all parties concerned to dispose of both the Civil Appeal as also the Writ Petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned judgment or the writ petition but with the following directions: 1. All the 3 groups of officers in the feeder categories i.e. (i) Superintendents of Central Excise; (ii) Superintendents of Customs (Preventive); and (iii) Customs Appraisers, may make representations to the Union of India suggesting the changes which according to them should be made in the Recruitment Rules for their promotion to Group-A post of Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise & Customs). 2. The Union of India shall duly consider all such representations including those made before it in light of the subsequent development in the cadre strength of the 3 feeder categories of group-B services and amend/revise the Recruitment Rules including altering the existing ratio to secure just and fair representation of all the 3 feeder categories. 3. Union of India shall try to complete the entire process by 31st December, 2011, uninfluenced by any observations made in the previous judgment of this Court in All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 520], in which the existing ratio was approved as also the observations in the impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2003 of the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1324 of 2002 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. Having perused one of the Office Orders (No. 51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby some officers were promoted from Group 'B' to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in the Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on purely ad hoc basis, we direct that all such ad hoc promotions shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Department in terms of this order. The civil appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in the above terms. All other applications are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. ................... (D.K. JAIN, J.) ................... (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.) NEW DELHI AUGUST 03, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01199 Dated, the 20th January, 2009 Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sankarrao Potdar Respondents: Central Board of Excise and Customs In response to Commission’s notice dated 10.12.2008, this matter came up for hearing on 14.01.2009. Appellant was absent when called. Respondents were represented through Shri Alok Agarwal, Under Secretary and Shri S.K. Dir, Under Secretary. 2. Through his RTI-application dated 12.02.2008 (copy enclosed to this order) the appellant asked for a host of information regarding promotions of Central Excise and Customs Superintendents. CPIO furnished replies to the appellant on 20.03.2008 and, following a direction dated 06.06.2008 by the Appellate Authority, again on 28.07.2008 an explanatory note to the appellant. 3. It is the CPIO’s case that the information which the appellant has requested is contained in a file which is presently in submission before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the matter of promotion of Group B to Group A in the Central Excise and Customs Department for the years 2002 and 2005. No information as requested by the appellant can be provided till the public authority is in control of the file. 4. Since as of now the information is not in the control of the public authority, viz. CBEC, no direction for this disclosure can be given. 5. Appeal is accordingly closed. >br /> 6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties. (A.N. TIWARI)INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION F No CIC/AT/A/2008/00084 Dated : June 30, 2008 Appellant : Shri Sitalkumar T Agarwal Respondents : Directorate General of Valuation, Department of Customs & Central Excise. This second-appeal filed by appellant, Shri Sitalkumar T. Agrawal came up for hearing on 11.06.2008 when the appellant was present in person and the respondents were represented by the Appellate Authority, Shri Yogesh Kumar Agarwal. 2. The short-point for decision here is whether certain data apparently collected by the Directorate General of Valuation of the Department of Customs and Central Excise aimed at protecting the customs revenue and to prevent leakages could be disclosed to the appellant. 3. Respondents urged that it was true that certain data was collected, which was analyzed and an advisory was issued to all departmental officers about how to apply discounting processes for the determination of the revenue liability for certain items of import and export. Respondents claimed that a copy of the final advisory issued to all officers of the department has already been provided to the appellant on the orders of the Appellate Authority. Respondents, however, declined to disclose the database on the basis of which the advisory was issued. Their case was that this database and the analysis of the information collected was essentially an internal process, which was periodically carried out by the Department with the sole purpose of equipping itself to meet attempts at evasion of customs revenue by importers and exporters. There was no public interest in disclosing this information. On the contrary, if disclosed, such information could be used by interested parties to devise ways and means to beat the system and evade duty. Such information is always a privileged information held by the revenue collecting department and cannot be disclosed without inflicting severe damage on the system and adversely impacting revenue collection. 4. Commission finds merit in the submission of the respondents. The department has already disclosed to the appellant the advisory (Valuation Alert) it had issued to all departmental officers in respect of how to apply formulae for discounting purposes. There is no reason why the material which was examined by the Department to arrive at a conclusion which led to the issue of the advisory, should be disclosed to the appellant. There is merit in the respondents’ submission that such disclosure was not in public interest and would adversely impact revenue collection. It attracts the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) as well as under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It is also noted that the data which formed the basis for the alert issued by the public authority was collected, collated and analyzed through own efforts of the public authority. There is no reason why they should pass on such information - based as it is on their own labours - to an outsider who wishes to access these. This variety of information attracts the exemption specified in Section 8(1)(d) - being the intellectual property of the respondents, which, if allowed to be disclosed, had the potentiality to harm the revenue interests of the State, which the respondents were duty-bound to protect. 5. In view of the above, the appeal cannot be allowed. Rejected. 6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties. (A N TIWARI) Information Commissioner HC Quashes Prosecution of the Officer on the Basis of Exoneration in the Departmental Proceedings... Mumbai: In a recent judgement the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai observed - ............ "In the present case it cannot be disputed that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Applicant on the basis of the same allegations which are made against the Applicant in the criminal case. In the disciplinary proceedings, the Apellate Authority (Hon'ble the President of India) has exonerated the Applicant of all the charges. The Authority accepted the report of the Union Public Service Commission which was submitted after holding a detailed inquiry. It has been clearly held that the allegations against the Applicant have not been established. Thus, the charge against the applicant could not be proved in departmental proceedings. The standard of proof required to establish guilt in the criminal case is higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the disciplinary proceedings. Now there is an order passed by the Hon'ble the President of India holding that the charge against the Applicant is not proved. The said order has been passed by accepting the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission. The evidence which may be adduced in criminal case will not be different from the evidence adduced in disciplinary proceedings." "In the circumstances it is obvious that there is no possibility of the trial ending in conviction. No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. In the light of the detailed findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings and considering the charges in the criminal proceedings, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. This is a fit case where the power under section 482 of the Code of 1973 will have to be excercised for securing the ends of justice." "In the circumstances, the application must succeed. Accordingly, the proceedings of the C.B.I. Special case No. 110/2001 pending before the learned Special Judge (for C.B.I. cases in Greater Mumbai) as against the Applicant is quashed and set aside............." From Referencer's own sources.

See Certified Copy of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SC) Orders

ITEM NO.MM-4A COURT NO.4 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. No. 8 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1198 OF 2005
S.P. DUDEJA & ANR. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(For modification/clarification)
Date: 30/03/2012 This Application was called on in
mentioning Board today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
For Appellant(s)
Mr. J.K. Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.
Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Parmanand Gaur,Adv.-on-Record
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv.
Mr. S.C. Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv.
for Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma,Adv.-on-Record
For Applicant(s)
Ms. Indira Jai Singh, ASG
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv
For Intervenor
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv.-on-Record
Mr.Raj Kumar Parashar, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Taken on Board.
The application is dismissed. However, the time to implement the said order is extended by a further period of three months from today.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ]
Court Master
[ Kusum Gulati ]
Court Master
[ Signed order is placed on the file ]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. 8 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005
S.P. Dudeja & Anr. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondent(s)

O R D E R
Taken on Board.
Having heard Ms. Indra Jai Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of the view that order dated 3rd August, 2011 does not warrant any modification/clarification. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, the time to implement the said order is extended by a further period of three months from today.
......................
[ D.K. JAIN, J. ]
......................
[ ANIL R. DAVE, J. ]
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 30, 2012.

ITEM NO.102(PH) COURT NO.5 SECTION IX/X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005
S.P. DUDEJA & ORS. ............................... Appellant (s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ............................ Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for appropriate order/direction and directions and impleadment)
WITH
W.P(C) NO. 385 of 2010
(With appln(s) for stay and impleadment and directions and intervention and with office report)
Date: 03/08/2011 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
For Appellant(s)
C.A. No. 1198/05 Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. J.K. Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.
Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Avijeet Bhujabal, Adv.
Mr. P.P. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Parmanand Gaur,Adv.
W.P.(C)385/10 &
impleading party/applicant
in C.A. No.1198/05 Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
rr 4 & 5 in Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv.
C.A.1198/05 Ms. Udita Singh, Adv.
r-6 in
CA 1198/05 Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Adv
Mr. Vibhor Verdhan, Adv.
r-1 in Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv.
C.A.1198/05 Mr. Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shailender Saini, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv
Intervener/applicant in
W.P.325/10 Mr. Sajith P. Warrier, Adv.
Mr. P.D. Baby John, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

I.A. No.7 in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005 is allowed and the amended memo of parties filed along with the said application is taken on record.

The civil appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in terms of the signed order. All other applications are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

(VINOD LAKHINA)
Court Master
(KUSUM GULATI)
Court Master
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2005
S.P. DUDEJA & ORS. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 385 OF 2010
VIMAL KUMAR & ANR. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

ORDER
I.A. No.7 in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005 is allowed and the amended memo of parties filed along with the said application is taken on record.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2010.
It has been brought to our notice that the Union of India in terms of our previous order/directions dated 22nd November, 2010 and 06th December, 2010, has filed an affidavit in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005, inter alia, stating, that it has initiated the process of reviewing the Recruitment Rules, 1987 for promotion from Group 'B' posts to Group 'A' posts. The entire scheme is being re-looked and worked out at the departmental level in consultation with an expert body including the Department of Personnel and the entire process is likely to be completed by 31st December, 2011.
In the aforesaid background, we deem it proper and in the interest of all parties concerned to dispose of both the Civil Appeal as also the Writ Petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned judgment or the writ petition but with the following directions:
1. All the 3 groups of officers in the feeder categories i.e. (i) Superintendents of Central Excise; (ii) Superintendents of Customs (Preventive); and (iii) Customs Appraisers, may make representations to the Union of India suggesting the changes which according to them should be made in the Recruitment Rules for their promotion to Group-A post of Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise & Customs).
2. The Union of India shall duly consider all such representations including those made before it in light of the subsequent development in the cadre strength of the 3 feeder categories of group-B services and amend/revise the Recruitment Rules including altering the existing ratio to secure just and fair representation of all the 3 feeder categories.
3. Union of India shall try to complete the entire process by 31st December, 2011, uninfluenced by any observations made in the previous judgment of this Court in All India Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 520], in which the existing ratio was approved as also the observations in the impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2003 of the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1324 of 2002 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Having perused one of the Office Orders (No. 51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby some officers were promoted from Group 'B' to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in the Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on purely ad hoc basis, we direct that all such ad hoc promotions shall abide by the final decision to be taken by the Department in terms of this order. The civil appeal and the writ petition are disposed of in the above terms. All other applications are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.
...................
(D.K. JAIN, J.)
...................
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 03, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01199
Dated, the 20th January, 2009
Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sankarrao Potdar
Respondents: Central Board of Excise and Customs
In response to Commission’s notice dated 10.12.2008, this matter came up for hearing on 14.01.2009. Appellant was absent when called. Respondents were represented through Shri Alok Agarwal, Under Secretary and Shri S.K. Dir, Under Secretary.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 12.02.2008 (copy enclosed to this order) the appellant asked for a host of information regarding promotions of Central Excise and Customs Superintendents. CPIO furnished replies to the appellant on 20.03.2008 and, following a direction dated 06.06.2008 by the Appellate Authority, again on 28.07.2008 an explanatory note to the appellant.
3. It is the CPIO’s case that the information which the appellant has requested is contained in a file which is presently in submission before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the matter of promotion of Group B to Group A in the Central Excise and Customs Department for the years 2002 and 2005. No information as requested by the appellant can be provided till the public authority is in control of the file.
4. Since as of now the information is not in the control of the public authority, viz. CBEC, no direction for this disclosure can be given.
5. Appeal is accordingly closed. >br /> 6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
(A.N. TIWARI)INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
F No CIC/AT/A/2008/00084
Dated : June 30, 2008
Appellant :
Shri Sitalkumar T Agarwal
Respondents :
Directorate General of Valuation, Department of Customs & Central Excise.
This second-appeal filed by appellant, Shri Sitalkumar T. Agrawal came up for hearing on 11.06.2008 when the appellant was present in person and the respondents were represented by the Appellate Authority, Shri Yogesh Kumar Agarwal.
2. The short-point for decision here is whether certain data apparently collected by the Directorate General of Valuation of the Department of Customs and Central Excise aimed at protecting the customs revenue and to prevent leakages could be disclosed to the appellant.
3. Respondents urged that it was true that certain data was collected, which was analyzed and an advisory was issued to all departmental officers about how to apply discounting processes for the determination of the revenue liability for certain items of import and export. Respondents claimed that a copy of the final advisory issued to all officers of the department has already been provided to the appellant on the orders of the Appellate Authority. Respondents, however, declined to disclose the database on the basis of which the advisory was issued. Their case was that this database and the analysis of the information collected was essentially an internal process, which was periodically carried out by the Department with the sole purpose of equipping itself to meet attempts at evasion of customs revenue by importers and exporters. There was no public interest in disclosing this information. On the contrary, if disclosed, such information could be used by interested parties to devise ways and means to beat the system and evade duty. Such information is always a privileged information held by the revenue collecting department and cannot be disclosed without inflicting severe damage on the system and adversely impacting revenue collection.
4. Commission finds merit in the submission of the respondents. The department has already disclosed to the appellant the advisory (Valuation Alert) it had issued to all departmental officers in respect of how to apply formulae for discounting purposes. There is no reason why the material which was examined by the Department to arrive at a conclusion which led to the issue of the advisory, should be disclosed to the appellant. There is merit in the respondents’ submission that such disclosure was not in public interest and would adversely impact revenue collection. It attracts the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) as well as under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. It is also noted that the data which formed the basis for the alert issued by the public authority was collected, collated and analyzed through own efforts of the public authority. There is no reason why they should pass on such information - based as it is on their own labours - to an outsider who wishes to access these. This variety of information attracts the exemption specified in Section 8(1)(d) - being the intellectual property of the respondents, which, if allowed to be disclosed, had the potentiality to harm the revenue interests of the State, which the respondents were duty-bound to protect.

5. In view of the above, the appeal cannot be allowed. Rejected.
6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
(A N TIWARI) Information Commissioner
HC Quashes Prosecution of the Officer on the Basis of Exoneration in the Departmental Proceedings...
Mumbai: In a recent judgement the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai observed - ............
"In the present case it cannot be disputed that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Applicant on the basis of the same allegations which are made against the Applicant in the criminal case. In the disciplinary proceedings, the Apellate Authority (Hon'ble the President of India) has exonerated the Applicant of all the charges. The Authority accepted the report of the Union Public Service Commission which was submitted after holding a detailed inquiry. It has been clearly held that the allegations against the Applicant have not been established. Thus, the charge against the applicant could not be proved in departmental proceedings. The standard of proof required to establish guilt in the criminal case is higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the disciplinary proceedings. Now there is an order passed by the Hon'ble the President of India holding that the charge against the Applicant is not proved. The said order has been passed by accepting the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission. The evidence which may be adduced in criminal case will not be different from the evidence adduced in disciplinary proceedings."
"In the circumstances it is obvious that there is no possibility of the trial ending in conviction. No purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. In the light of the detailed findings recorded in disciplinary proceedings and considering the charges in the criminal proceedings, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. This is a fit case where the power under section 482 of the Code of 1973 will have to be excercised for securing the ends of justice."
"In the circumstances, the application must succeed. Accordingly, the proceedings of the C.B.I. Special case No. 110/2001 pending before the learned Special Judge (for C.B.I. cases in Greater Mumbai) as against the Applicant is quashed and set aside............."
From Referencer's own sources.