TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this appeal and determine the issues arising therein. 2. The facts stated briefly are that the respondent - original appellant is a company whose place of business is located at village Sayli, Silvassa within the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi issued a show-cause notice dated 5th February, 2009 to the respondent - original appellant as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them in relation to the allegations made in the show-cause notice. The showcause notice culminated into an Order-in-Original dated 5th March, 2010 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Vapi Commissionerate disallowing cenvat credit as stated in the operative part of the order levying interest as well as penalty. The respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal at Ahmedabad. By an order dated 28th October, 2014 which is subject matter of challenge in the main appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority, against which the respondent - appellant has preferred the present appeal which came to be admitted by an order dated 24th December, 2014 on two questions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 36(b)(iii) of the Act, the appeal would be competent before the High Court of Bombay. It was, accordingly, urged that in view of the settled legal position as enunciated in the above decisions, the application deserves to be allowed and the appeal preferred by the respondent is required to be dismissed as being not maintainable before this court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel with Mr. Harsh Parekh, learned advocate for the respondent, strenuously attempted to convince the court to take another view and either hold that the earlier decisions of this court are per incuriam or to refer the issue to a larger bench of this court. The learned counsel submitted that it is the cause of action for the lis that gives necessary territorial jurisdiction to the High Court and that in the present case, the cause of action for the lis clearly arises within the jurisdiction of this High Court. According to the learned counsel, the cause of action is the confirmation of the demand raised against the respondent/original appellant which gives rise to the appeal. In the present case, the entire adjudication proceeding took place in Gujarat and hence, it is this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction of this High Court and therefore, the appeal has rightly been filed in this court. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007 (213) E.L.T. 323 (SC), wherein the issue before the High Court was as regards the determination of the situs of the High Court in which appeals would lie under section 35G(1) of the Act. It was pointed out that the Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Desai and Associates v. CIT (Appeals) (supra) and held that the situs of the Tribunal is not relevant in deciding the jurisdiction of the High Court. The question of law arising for decision in a reference should be determined by the High Court which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer or the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that testing the facts of the present case on the anvil of the principles enunciated in the above decision, the situs of the adjudicating authority is Vapi, the show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi and the entire proceeding culminating into the order-in-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment), if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. 36. Definitions - In this Chapter - (b) "High Court" means, - (i) in relation to any State, the High Court for that State; (ii) in relation to a Union Territory to which the jurisdiction of the High Court of a State has been extended by law, that High Court; (iii) in relation to the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Goa, Daman and Diu, the High Court at Bombay; (iv) in relation to any other Union Territory, the highest court of civil appeal for that territory other than the Supreme court of India. Thus, section 35G of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal not being an order relating to, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment, if the High Court is satisfi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d regardless from which State the case has originated can be maintained in the court. It may be noted that in the case before the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court, the seat of the adjudicating authority and the place where the dispute arose were not different, in other words, the seat of the adjudicating authority and the place where the manufacturing units were located, were both situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the same court. The peculiar situation that arises in the present case is that while all adjudicating authority and all the appellate authorities are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat, the manufacturing unit in relation to which the dispute arose is situated in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and by virtue of the provisions of section 36(b)(iii), it is the High Court at Bombay which is the High Court in relation to such Union Territory. 9. In the present case, the manufacturing unit of the respondent assessee in relation to which the dispute arises, is situated at Silvassa within the jurisdiction of the central excise authorities who are located at Silvassa namely, the Deputy Commissioner/Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G of the Act. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this court is not in agreement with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the above referred decisions rendered by this court are per incuriam. This court is also of the opinion that no case has been made out for referring the matter to the Larger Bench. 10. A contention has been raised on behalf of the respondent (original appellant) that assuming that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to decide the present appeal, the order/direction issued by the Bombay High Court is not binding on the appellate authority/adjudicating authority of different territorial jurisdiction. In the opinion of this court when the Act itself clearly specifies that the jurisdiction to decide appeals in relation to the Union Territories of Daman, Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli is vested in the High Court at Bombay, it is the said High Court which is the jurisdictional court in relation to matters arising from the said Union Territories. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the seat of the first appellate authority or the Tribunal may be situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Gujarat, in v....