9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not in public interest. The matters can be kept in call book, if there is specific direction for the same issued in that case by the Superior Courts. The apprehension of the petitioner that the adjudicating authority would pass a final order without following the said mandatory, statutory and legal requirements and the petitioner would then be forced to hardship of payment of pre-deposit which is pre-requisite for availing appellate remedies, is also unfounded - Had the petitioner prima facie shown any material for such apprehension, we would have issued notice to ensure compliance of statutory requirements or if the final order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority without following the said mandatory, statutory and legal requiremen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stay, the judgment of Delhi High Court is still in force qua all others and thus the adjudication shall be kept in call book and the impugned Circular is thus liable to be set aside. 3. The claim of the petitioner that therefore several similar cases, where show cause notices have been issued by the DRI Officers, have been placed in call book by various adjudicating authorities all over India and merely because the impugned Circular has been issued, the adjudicating authority in his case is proceeding further to adjudicate the show cause notice issued by ADG, DRI proposing demand of duty from the petitioner. 4. As per Annexure-P/1, the Circular impugned has been issued pursuant to legal opinion taken from the Solicitor General of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise reported in (1999) 7 SCC 84. The apex Court held that, apart from the fact that the Circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said Circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the Circulars. In Paper Products Ltd.(supra), the Apex Court has held that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the Circular which is in force at the relevant point of time. 6. The claim of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 367 which has been followed in Swiber Offshore Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Kandla[2014 (301) E.L.T.119(Tri). The petitioner claims that the adjudicating proceedings are pending and final order is yet to be passed, we cannot presume merely on the basis of such unfounded apprehension that the adjudicating authority would not comply with the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, despite binding precedents in this regard in J.K. Cigarettes Ltd. v. Commissioner [2009 (242) E.L.T.189(Del.), Slotco Steel Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner [2012(281) E.L.T.193(Del.), Basudev Garg v. Commissioner [2013(294) E.L.T. 353(Del.), CCE, Meerut-1 v. Parmarth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
