Tribunal Denies Appeal Transfer Request Based on Head-Office Location

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application to transfer the appeal to Mumbai jurisdiction based on the location of the appellant's head-office. Despite citing precedents and notifications, the Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction is not determined by the appellant's principal office location. The miscellaneous applications for transfer were denied, and the stay petitions were scheduled for a future date.

---

---

Issues: Transfer of appeal to Mumbai jurisdiction based on the location of the appellant's head-office.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for transferring the appeal to Mumbai despite the impugned order being from Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman, as the appellant's head-office is in Mumbai. However, the Tribunal noted that as per Public Notice No. 02 of 2005, the Bench lacked the power to transfer matters based on the location of the appellant's head-office. Citing precedents like M/s. Just Marble v. CC, Jaipur and M/s. Godrej Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, the Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdiction of the bench where the principal office is situated is not a valid reason for transfer.

2. The appellant referred to the case of CCE Bangalore v. Standard Chartered Bank, where appeals were transferred to another bench. However, the Tribunal found that this case did not consider the relevant public notice or subsequent decisions. Additionally, the appellant cited the High Court's decision in Vijay Stereophonic Sound Studio v. CEGAT, New Delhi, which highlighted the right of importers to transfer appeals to benches under whose jurisdiction they conduct business. The Tribunal noted that during the relevant period, such powers were granted to benches as per Notification No. 3 of 1995 CEGAT, and refusal to transfer was deemed unjustified by the High Court based on this context.

3. Considering the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to transfer the appeals to Mumbai. Therefore, the miscellaneous applications for transfer were rejected, and the stay petitions were scheduled for a future date.

This detailed analysis highlights the Tribunal's decision regarding the transfer of appeals based on the location of the appellant's head-office, emphasizing legal precedents and relevant notifications to support the final judgment.

---