2024 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l jurisdiction of the Central Excise Division, Ghaziabad and had been manufacturing electric meters therein. During the period from 23.04.2002 to 30.05.2002 the electric meters were sold to State Electricity Boards against the purchase agreements which had price variation clause. The price finally determined in terms of the price variation clause was lower than the price on which duty was paid at the time of clearances of the electric meters from the factory. The Appellant filed two refund claims on 24.01.2003 for the excess duty of Rs. 28,23,503/- paid. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Ghaziabad rejected both the refund claims vide his Orders-in-Original dated 25.02.2005. The matter finally came up before the Tribunal and vide it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the CGST authorities at Noida on the following grounds:- (i) M/s QRG Enterprises, Noida in which M/s TTL Ltd., Ghaziabad was merged was registered at Noida. (ii) Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2018 was endorsed to CGST authorities at Noida by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Noida. (iii) The Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut relied upon the Tribunal's Final Order reported in 2004 (166) ELT 350. 3. The Appellant by their written submission submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Authorities at Noida and not the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad, had the jurisdiction to grant refund of the duty paid in Ghaziabad Division by the Appellants' factory located in Ghaziabad D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Noida against the appeal filed by the respondent before the said appellate authority. The respondent was therefore aware of the jurisdictional authority to whom he was required to approach for the compliance of the OIA dated 28.02.2018. Moreover, the said OIA was endorsed to CGST authorities at Noida only and not to CGST, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, the refund was to be dealt by CGST, Noida and not CGST, Ghaziabad. Therefore, the appellant's submission that the impugned order has been passed beyond the jurisdiction is tenable. Hon'ble CESTAT, New Delhi, in the case of C. Cus, Amritsar Vs D. K. Group of Industries, as reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 350, had held as under. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar has no juri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sdiction over the factories in Ghaziabad Division. Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2018 is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal filed against the Order-in-Original dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad and not passed by the authorities at Noida. Endorsement of the Order-in-Appeal to Noida Authorities is a mistake. It should have been endorsed to the authority who passed the impugned order. Wrong endorsement of the Order-in- Appeal cannot conquer jurisdiction to the endorsee. It is to be decided on the basis of the location of the factory and of the payment of duty. While jurisdiction of the Commissioners is specified by the Government / Board by issue of a notification., no such notification is issued in cas....