https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72098 The statutory 120-day period for placing reference applications before the proper Bench was treated as directory where the applications had been filed within time and the delay resulted from administrative reasons, so the maintainability objection was rejected. The jurisdictional challenge was also rejected because the alleged illicit removals were linked to factories within the Madras Collectorate, which exercised excise control over those units; the fact that the seizure occurred outside the Collectorate did not negate jurisdiction. The reasoning recognised that more than one authority could have territorial reach on these facts, and the proceedings were held not to be vitiated by lack of jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2011 18:11:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72098 The statutory 120-day period for placing reference applications before the proper Bench was treated as directory where the applications had been filed within time and the delay resulted from administrative reasons, so the maintainability objection was rejected. The jurisdictional challenge was also rejected because the alleged illicit removals were linked to factories within the Madras Collectorate, which exercised excise control over those units; the fact that the seizure occurred outside the Collectorate did not negate jurisdiction. The reasoning recognised that more than one authority could have territorial reach on these facts, and the proceedings were held not to be vitiated by lack of jurisdiction. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72098