2015 (12) TMI 1212 - HC - Central Excise

Forum conveniens doctrine applied; Bombay High Court appropriate forum. Parties advised to present arguments there. Petition dismissed.

Faze Three Ltd. Versus Union of India

The High Court dismissed the petition, citing the doctrine of forum conveniens and stating that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum for the ... Jurisdiction of Court - Bombay High Court or Gujarat High Court - Held that:- mere fact that the situs of the adjudicating authority is situated at Vapi within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court or that part of the investigation has been carried out at Vapi would not be a determinative factor for compelling this court to decide the matter on merits. As noted earlier, against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, appeal lies to the Tribunal and against the order of the Tribunal, appeal lies to the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the statutory forum to adjudicate the dispute raised in the petition at the level of the High Court is the Bombay High Court and not this High Court. Had the petitioner availed of the remedy of appeal, instead of invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the dispute would have travelled to the Bombay High Court and not this High Court. The Bombay High Court being the jurisdictional High Court insofar as the adjudicating authority, the lower appellate authority, as well as the Tribunal in relation to matters arising from the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, it is the decisions of that High Court which are binding on those authorities. Under the circumstances, it is the Bombay High Court before which the action can be most appropriately brought - Decided against Appellant. Issues:Challenge to order-in-original dated 26.05.2015 and 24.06.2015 passed by Principal Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax, Silvassa under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction raised by respondent.Analysis:Issue 1: Territorial JurisdictionThe respondent contended that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies with the High Court of Bombay due to the unit's location in Silvassa. Citing the decision in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was argued that jurisdiction should be determined based on statutory provisions. However, the petitioner argued that since the investigation and order were from Vapi, within the High Court's jurisdiction, the petition should be entertained.Issue 2: Efficacious Remedy and Jurisdictional ErrorThe petitioner claimed that the impugned order exceeded the show cause notice, leading to a jurisdictional error. They argued that the demand was time-barred and lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of certain issues in the show cause notice. Citing Metal Forgings v. Union of India and other cases, the petitioner contended that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was justified.Issue 3: Doctrine of Forum ConveniensThe Court acknowledged that a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction but emphasized the importance of the doctrine of forum conveniens. Despite having territorial jurisdiction, the Court invoked the doctrine to refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. It noted that the matter should be adjudicated by the Bombay High Court, the appropriate forum for appeals related to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.ConclusionThe High Court dismissed the petition by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens, stating that the Bombay High Court was the appropriate forum for the action. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the impugned orders or the availability of alternative remedies. The parties were advised to present their contentions before the appropriate forum. The notice was discharged with no order as to costs.