Territorial jurisdiction for central excise appeals depends on cause of action and forum conveniens, not the Tribunal's location alone.

Territorial jurisdiction for statutory appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 depends on more than the situs of the Tribunal. The Court applied territorial jurisdiction principles and the forum conveniens doctrine, holding that the location of the appellate forum is not by itself determinative and that the High Court must consider where the cause of action arose and whether another forum is more appropriate. As the adjudication, original proceedings, and dispute all arose in Himachal Pradesh, the Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal's presence in New Delhi did not confer jurisdiction and accepted the preliminary objection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain statutory appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 merely because the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi had passed the impugned order, or whether the location of the adjudicating authority and the place where the cause of action arose governed jurisdiction.

Analysis: The jurisdictional question was answered by applying the principles on territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens. The earlier five-Judge decision held that the situs of the appellate or revisional authority is not by itself determinative, and that even where part of the cause of action may arise within a court's territory, the High Court must still consider whether another forum is more appropriate. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which rejected the argument that the mere location of the Tribunal could confer appellate jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court. Since the original proceedings, adjudication, and the dispute regarding non-payment of NCCD all arose in Himachal Pradesh, and the Tribunal's situs in Delhi was not a sufficient connecting factor, the doctrine of forum conveniens weighed against entertaining the appeals.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and the preliminary objection was accepted.

---