TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise jurisdiction over the challenge made to the Orders dated 1.5.2008 passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi. Preliminary Objections have been raised on behalf of the Respondents pertaining to the relative lack of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. As the array of parties manifests, the Appellant operates from Plot No.54-55, Parsakhera Industrial Estate, Parsakhera, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh where it had installed the capital goods imported by it. It had availed of CENVAT credit during the period from November, 2004 to March, 2005. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.3.2006. After adjudication the Commissioner confirmed the demand and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal 670; Mandal Jalal v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S. S. Jain and Co. and another v. Union of India and others (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126)". 3. In Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. vs. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., (1994) 1 SCC 34 the conundrum concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess outside Delhi. In the former case, the Division Bench suggested that when a Bench of the ITAT determines an appeal as an appeal from a particular State, it would be quite appropriate for the Bench to state the case to the High Court of the State from which the appeal had originated. A similar approach was taken by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs. Union of India, 2007(218) ELT 495(Bom). The Court held that even though the Settlement Commission was physically located at Mumbai, since it was dealing with a case arising in Tamil Nadu, it could be deemed to be located in that State and accordingly amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Madras High Court; the Bombay Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reason that the predominant, substantial or significant part of the cause of action arises in that Court. In other words any High Court is justified in exercising powers under Article 226 either if the person, Authority or Government is located within its territories or if the significant part of the cause of action has arisen within its territories. The rationale of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would, therefore, also apply to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution. These considerations are aptly encapsulated in the term forum conveniens which refers to the situs where the legal action be most appropriately brought, considering the best interests of the parties and the public (see Black's Law Dictionary). The writ Court should ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and which might suit him and thus he would be able to successfully evade the law laid down by the High Court at Bombay. ... It would give rise to the issue of forum shopping. ....For example, an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it which may be contrary to the judgments of the High Court of Bombay". 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied heavily on the pronouncements in Canon Steels P. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Customs (Export Promotion), 2007 (218) ELT 161(SC). Significantly, Ambica Industries was not cited or cosidered even though it was an earlier ....