2022 (5) TMI 396

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2022, this Court passed the following order : "1. We have heard Mr. Paresh Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants and Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned ASG appearing for the respondents. 2. The entire edifice of this writ application is the judgment rendered by this High Court in a batch of writ applications, the lead matter being the M/s. Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2019(368) E.L.T. 337 (Guj.). The writ applicants' grievance is that it has been placed in the "Denied Entity List" ("DEL"), thereby the writ applicants cannot apply for a license to import the raw materials from any foreign country for the purpose of manufacture of the goods in India and thereafter, export the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., post this matter on 21.04.2022 on top of the Board. If the Union intends to file any further reply, it may do so, by the next date of hearing We request Mr. Vyas to take instructions from his client whether the license can be issued on provisional basis subject to any terms and conditions, which may protect the interest of the Revenue." 3. Mr. Raval would submit that M/s Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) may not be relied upon at this point of time as the judgment is now a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. Mr. Raval pointed out that the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s. Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been stayed from its operation. 4. In reply to the aforesaid st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Space Telelink Ltd. 2017 (355) E.L.T. 189 (Del.), wherein the court placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1, and held that an order keeping in abeyance the judgment of lower court or authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself, i.e., its reasoning. It was submitted that therefore, the principles enunciated in the decision of this court in the case of Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd.(supra) would not stand defaced. 4.Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Issue Notice, returnable on 4^th December 2019. By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings pursuant ....