9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y one and should not be exercised in a routine manner especially when the Petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory remedy available. This Court is not persuaded to take a different view in the present petition for both the reasons noted hereinbefore viz., the petition is premature since no notification has yet been issued by the Central Government consequent upon the Final Finding dated 4th July, 2017 and secondly, even if such a notification is issued, the Petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT - petition dismissed. - W. P. (C) 6267/2017 & CM APPL. No. 25968/2017 (Stay) - - - Dated:- 24-7-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a notification accepting the Final Finding was issued by the Central Government, the Petitioner at that stage has the statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) against both the Notification and the Final Finding. 3. Mr. Sibal submitted that there was non-compliance by the DA of specific directions issued by this Court in the order dated 7th October, 2016 in W.P.(C) 9462/2016 which challenged the Notification dated 12th April, 2016 initiating the investigation which has resulted in the Final Finding challenged in this writ petition. He pointed out that in the said order, this Court had directed the DA to take into consideration all the contentions raised by the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This Court preferred to follow its earlier decisions in Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v. Designated Authority 2016 (338 ELT 397 (Del.); PTA Users Association v. Union India 2016 (340) ELT 125 (Del.) and Balaji Action Buildwell v. Union of India 2016 (337) ELT 166 (Del.) in which this Court had consistently declined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Final Finding of the DA without the Petitioner exhausting the statutory remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the Court explained: 10. The question is not whether this Court can entertain the present writ petition. The question is whether, in the facts and circumstances, it should? The power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
