Mukesh Goel Partner M/S H Q Lamps Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Icds, New Delhi
$-58,61,62 *
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8932/2017 SUNITA GOEL, PROPRIETOR, M/s. K-LITE MANUFACTURING COMPANY Petitioner Through:
Ms.Vidushi Shubham, Advocate.
versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), ICDS, NEW DELm Respondent Through:
Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate.
+ W.P.(C) 8935/2017 RAKESH GOEL, PROPRIETOR, M/s. GOEL LIGHTING Petitioner Through:
Ms.Vidushi Shubham, Advocate.
versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), ICDS, NEW DELFII Respondent Through:
Mr.Haipreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate.
+ W.P.(C) 8936/2017 MUKESH GOEL, PARTNER, M/s. H Q LAMPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Petitioner Through:
Ms.Vidushi Shubham, Advocate.
versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), ICDS, NEW DELHI Respondent Through:
Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate.
Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
tVP (C) Nos. 8932, 8935, 8936/2017 Page / of 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 11.10.2017 C.M. No. 36546/2017 (exemptions) in W.P.(0 No. 8932/2017 C.M. No. 36550/2017 (exemptions) in W.P.(C) No. 8935/2017 C.M. No. 36552/2017 (exemptions) in W.P»(C) No. 8936/2017
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No. 8932/2017 & C.M. No. 36545/2017 (stay) W.P.(C) No. 8935/2017 & C.M. No. 36549/2017 (stay) W.P.(C) No. 8936/2017 & C.M. No. 36551/2017 (stay)
2. The Petitioners are aggrieved that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI') is proceeding with the adjudication of the show cause notices ('SCNs') issued to them, notwithstanding the decision of this Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del). The learned counsel for the Petitioners does not dispute that the said decision is under appeal in the Supreme Court of India and has been stayed by the SupremeCourtby anorderdated 1^^ August2016.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks an order similar to the one passed by this Court on 30"^ May 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 5016/2017,taking note of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX,dated lO"" March 2017, whereby similar cases were asked to be kept on the "Call Book" by the Department.
However,, subsequently, Instruction bearing F.
No.
276/104/2016-CX.8A (Pt.) has been issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 14^*^ July 2017 again clarifying that the adjudication WP (C) Nos. 8932, 8935, 8936/2017
proceedings pursuant to the SCN as issued in the present cases could continue. The Petitioners have in these petitions not challenged the validity ofthe aforementionedCBEC Instructiondated 14"^ July 2017.
4. Considering that the question of law raised is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the judgment of this Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. {supra), which has been stayed by the Supreme Court, the Court is not in a position to entertain the present petition and grant any of the reliefs as prayed for.
5. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2017 I /'
'anb'
WP (C) Nos. 8932, 8935, 8936/2017 Page 3 of J