https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45365 A prior Bench decision had already decided the writ point in favour of the petitioner, and the Court followed that ruling. The objection that territorial jurisdiction lay only with the Andhra Pradesh High Court was rejected because the petitioner-company's head office was in Madras and the factory was not shown to be an independent entity requiring separate assessment. On those facts, the territorial jurisdiction challenge was untenable, and the writ petition was allowed. en-us Thu, 19 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:29:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45365 A prior Bench decision had already decided the writ point in favour of the petitioner, and the Court followed that ruling. The objection that territorial jurisdiction lay only with the Andhra Pradesh High Court was rejected because the petitioner-company's head office was in Madras and the factory was not shown to be an independent entity requiring separate assessment. On those facts, the territorial jurisdiction challenge was untenable, and the writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45365