TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 29/06/2016 and 28/12/2016 shall be taken out and be adjudicated in accordance with law. 2. According to the writ petitioner, the earlier Circulars of 2016 which thus stand withdrawn, were on the issue of competency of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, covered by judgment of Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Ltd. v. Union of India & Others [2016 (335) ELT 605]. The Department's SLP No.20453/2016 is pending before the Apex Court, wherein in while issuing notice, operation of the said judgment is stayed on 1.08.2016. The petitioner submits that even if a judgment is stayed, the stay shall operate qua the parties thereto, and not qua all others. Thus, irrespective of the stay, the judgment of Delhi High Court is still in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rave injustice and the same would be 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. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the SLP in Mangilal Impex Ltd.(supra) is already listed for final hearing and, therefore, the adjudicating authority shall await the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Circular do not contain any infirmity. The Circular is binding upon the authorities and they cannot act to the contrary as held by the Apex Court in Catena of decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (1999) 7 SCC 84. The apex Court held that, ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 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. The challenge of the circular, therefore, fails for lack of any merit. 7. We also find no basis on the apprehension of the petitioner that the Adjudicating Authority would not follow the the statutory requirement under section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, and would neither summon the persons for their examination before considering their statements as relevant despite the same being prescribed in statute, nor would follow the Order of examination as per the the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 367 whic....