9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject to just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(C) No.10742/2015 & CM No.27588/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) No.10751/2015 & CM No.27665/2015 (for stay), W.P.(C) No.10783/2015 & CM No.27713/2015 (for stay) & W.P.(C) No.10811/2015 & CM No.27796/2015 (for stay) 3. All these petitions though preferred by different petitioners are on same facts raised the same grounds, claim the same relief and are taken up together. 4. Each of the petitioners, in or about December of the year 2008 was served with a notice by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to show cause why the differential customs duty be not recovered from it for undervaluation of the imports effected by each. No response was submitted by any of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs (Import), wrongly mentioned as Commissioner of Customs (Export) in the Index of the petitions and seeking a direction for supply of documents. 7. It has at the outset been enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, how interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority can be entertained. If the Adjudicating Authority violates the procedure prescribed in law for hearing or passes an order in contravention thereof, the remedy provided against the said final order can be availed of. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the High Courts in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 487 finding mention in the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.706/2015 titled Shashi Bala Vs. SBM Sr. Secondary School 218 (2015) DLT 575, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Tourism Development Corporation MANU/DE/1034/2013: (2013) IV AD (Del) 615 and Eastern Economist Ltd. Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/0090/2015. 8. The counsel for the petitioners states that if the final order is passed without supplying the documents and the same is against the petitioners, the petitioners to prefer an appeal thereagainst would have to deposit 7.5% of the adjudicated duty and which would prejudice the petitioners. 9. That, in law is no ground to entertain petitions at the interim stage of the proceedings. This Court under Article 226 of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
