Settlement Commission Jurisdiction Upheld in Mumbai Transfer Case

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an interim order by the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai. The Court emphasized that since the case was transferred to Mumbai from Chennai at the request of the first respondent and the petitioner participated in the Mumbai proceedings without contesting the transfer, the challenge to the interim order should be raised in the High Court in Mumbai, not Chennai. The judgment underscored the importance of respecting the jurisdictional decisions of the Settlement Commission and challenging orders in the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to interim order passed by Settlement Commission, Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought to quash an interim order passed by the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai. The petitioner issued a show cause notice alleging duty evasion by the respondents. The first respondent approached the Settlement Commission, seeking transfer of the case from Chennai to Mumbai, which was granted. The Settlement Commission in Mumbai passed an interim order directing the first respondent to pay the admitted duty amount. A preliminary objection was raised on the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.

The Court considered the jurisdictional aspect, noting that the cause of action arose in Chennai, where the original application was filed. However, the case was transferred to the Mumbai Bench following a petition by the first respondent and a decision by the Principal Bench in New Delhi. The Court emphasized that the petitioner did not challenge the transfer order and participated in subsequent proceedings before the Mumbai Bench. As a result, the Court held that the petitioner cannot challenge the interim order before the High Court in Chennai and suggested seeking remedy in the High Court at Mumbai.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the proper course of action for the petitioner would be to approach the High Court in Mumbai. The judgment highlighted the significance of respecting the decisions and proceedings of the Settlement Commission and the importance of challenging orders in the appropriate jurisdictional forum.

---