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

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 action. The Court did not address the merits of the impugned orders or the availability of alternative remedies, advising the parties to present their arguments before the suitable forum. The petition was discharged without any cost orders issued.

---

---

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 Jurisdiction
The 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 Error
The 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 Conveniens
The 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.

Conclusion
The 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.

---