CESTAT Ahmedabad Dismisses Appeal; Jurisdiction Issue; Appellant Directed to File in Mumbai

The appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT Ahmedabad as the impugned order was passed by the ADG (Adjudication), DRI, Mumbai, falling under the jurisdiction of CESTAT Mumbai. The appellant's argument citing Public Notices and judgments was rejected, leading to the conclusion that the appeal was non-maintainable in Ahmedabad. The appellant was given the liberty to file the appeal before the Mumbai bench, and the Early Hearing Application was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of CESTAT Ahmedabad vs. CESTAT Mumbai

Jurisdiction of CESTAT Ahmedabad:
The appeal in question stemmed from an order by the Additional Director General, (Adjudication), DRI, Mumbai. The appellant argued that the Ahmedabad bench had jurisdiction as the import of goods occurred at Mundra Port, Gujarat, giving rise to the action in Gujarat. The appellant cited Public Notices 2/2005 and 2/2006 and referenced judgments like Karamchand Appliances (P) LTD- 2008 (227) ELT 437 and Dixson Cargo Consolidators Pvt.Ltd.- 2019 (365) ELT 366(Bom.) to support their stance.

Jurisdiction of CESTAT Mumbai:
On the contrary, the revenue, represented by the Learned Superintendent (AR), contended that the cause of action, in this case, was the passing of the adjudication order by the ADG (Adjudication), DRI, Mumbai, thus falling under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai bench. The revenue relied on judgments like Areva T& D India Ltd- 2015-TIOL-2299-CESTAT-MAD and Shirdi Industrial Ltd- 2016 (336) ELT 703 (tri.All) to support their argument.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions and the judgments cited by both parties, the bench concluded that the impugned order was indeed passed by the ADG (Adjudication), DRI, Mumbai. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to fall under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai bench, rendering the appeal non-maintainable before the Ahmedabad bench. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant granted the liberty to file the appeal before the Mumbai bench. The Early Hearing Application was also disposed of in light of this decision.

---