Full Text
W.P.(C) 8932/2017
SUNITA GOEL, PROPRIETOR, M/s. K-LITE MANUFACTURING COMPANY Petitioner
Through: Ms.Vidushi Shubham, Advocate.
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Suresh Chaudhary, Advocate.
RAKESH GOEL, PROPRIETOR, M/s. GOEL LIGHTING Petitioner
Through: Mr.Haipreet Singh, Sr.Standing
MUKESH GOEL, PARTNER, M/s. H Q LAMPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Petitioner
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing tVP (C) Nos. 8932, 8935, 8936/2017 Page / of5
2017:DHC:8855-DB
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
ORDER
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 Supreme Court by anorder dated 1^^ August 2016.
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 Page 2 of[3] proceedings pursuant to the SCN as issued in the present cases could continue. The Petitioners have in these petitions not challenged the validity ofthe aforementioned CBEC Instruction dated 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 ofthe reliefs as prayed for.
5. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.