9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against such order but in view of the said statement of the counsel for the respondent, the petitioners would avail the remedy of appeal. - Recording the aforesaid, the petitions are disposed of. - W.P.(C) 10742/2015, W.P.(C) 10751/2015, W.P.(C) 10783/2015 & W.P.(C) 10811/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - MR. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J For the Petitioner : Mr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms. Malabika Sarkar And Mr. Prashant Srivastava, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv. ORDER CM No.27589/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10742/2105, CM No.27666/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10751/2105, CM No.27714/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10783/2105 CM No.27797/2015 in W.P.(C) No.10811/2105 (all for exemption): 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 14th August, 2015 asked the petitioners to approach DRI for collection of the non-relied upon documents and the petitioners claim to have so approached the DRI but state that the documents have not been supplied. Now, the Adjudicating Authority has vide order dated 29th October, 2015 observed that the adjudication proceedings cannot be stalled for non-supply of non-relied upon documents by the DRI and called upon the petitioners to file their replies by 16th November, 2015. The counsel for the petitioners states that replies have not been filed as yet and the petitioners have applied for extension of time on the ground of these petitions. 6. These petitions have been filed impleading only the Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 29th October, 2015 of the respondent, Commissioner of Customs (Import) refusing the request of the petitioners and directing the petitioners to file replies is at best an interim order. It is again a settled principle that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 will not interfere with interim orders and let the Tribunals over which it exercises supervisory jurisdiction to conclude the proceedings before them, reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293, National Council for Cement and Building Materials Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCC 206 and Avtar Singh Hit Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Committee (2006) 8 SCC 487 finding mention in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed on this ground alone. He has further contended that if the petitioners are aggrieved from the order dated 29th October, 2015 of the Adjudicating Authority observing that the proceedings cannot be stalled and calling upon the petitioners to file the reply, the grievance of the petitioners thereagainst is before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. The counsel for the petitioners states that though according to him no appeal lies against such order but in view of the said statement of the counsel for the respondent, the petitioners would avail the remedy of appeal. 12. Recording the aforesaid, the petitions are disposed of. 13. No costs. 14. Copy of this order be given dasti under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
