2015 (9) TMI 1266 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Grants Cause Title Change, Rejects Appeal Transfer, Affirms Jurisdiction

Areva T & D India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, LTU Chennai

The Tribunal allowed the change of cause title applications for both the Assessee and Revenue, granting the change from M/s. Areva T&D Ltd. to M/s. ... Change of cause title - Transfer of appeal - Held that:- OIO has been issued by the jurisdictional Commissioner, LTU falling within the jurisdiction of this Bench falling within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the respective appeal will lie in this Bench. Accordingly, the request of Revenue for transfer of appeal is not justified. On perusal of Central Excise Registration Certificate No. AAPCS6078QEM007 dt. 28.6.2013 we also find that appellant has the unit in Chennai and Registration was issued by the Central Excise Chennai-IV Commissionerate. - Change of cause title allowed. Issues:1. Change of cause title applications filed by both Assessee and Revenue.2. Request for transfer of appeal to CESTAT Kolkata Bench by Revenue.3. Jurisdictional dispute regarding the location of the appellant unit and the Commissioner's jurisdiction.Analysis:1. The Revenue filed a MISC application seeking a change of cause title and transfer of appeal to CESTAT Kolkata Bench, while the appellant-assessee also filed an application for a change of cause title. The jurisdictional issue arose as the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Chennai passed the impugned order, leading to a debate on the appropriate jurisdiction for the appeal hearing.2. The Assessee's advocate argued that the cause of action originated in Chennai, where the impugned order was issued, making it appropriate for the appeal to be heard by the Chennai Bench of CESTAT. He emphasized that the right to seek transfer of appeal lies with the assessee, not the revenue. Moreover, he highlighted that any further appeal would need to be filed before the Madras High Court due to jurisdictional constraints.3. The Revenue's representative contended that the LTU procedures granted jurisdiction to the Commissioner LTU over all units opting for LTU status. However, after a demerger, the unit in question was no longer part of the LTU, shifting the jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI. The argument centered on the transfer of records and the location of the appellant unit post-demerger.4. Upon deliberation, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner, LTU, Chennai, falling under its jurisdiction. Citing precedents like Big Apple Computers case and Laddan Steel Ware case, it was established that the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal Bench within the jurisdictional High Court where the cause of action arose. The Tribunal also referenced the Nissan Copper case to support the principle that matters within a specific jurisdiction should be heard by the corresponding zonal bench.5. The Tribunal found that the appellant unit was still under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, LTU, Chennai at the time of the impugned order. Post-demerger, the unit transitioned to a different entity. Considering the jurisdictional nexus and the location of the appellant unit, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be heard by the Chennai Bench. The Tribunal also verified the Central Excise Registration Certificate, confirming the appellant's unit in Chennai under the Central Excise Chennai-IV Commissionerate.6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the change of cause title applications for both the Assessee and Revenue, granting the change from M/s. Areva T&D Ltd. to M/s. Schneider Electric Infrastructure Ltd. and from Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Chennai to Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI Commissionerate, respectively. The request for transfer of appeal to CESTAT Kolkata Bench by Revenue was rejected, affirming the jurisdiction of the Chennai Bench. The stay application was scheduled for a future hearing date.