2002 (4) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n payment of Excise Duty related to the aforesaid classification. In the affidavit-in-opposition the point of territorial jurisdiction has been taken. Admittedly the petitioner has its factory situated at Abu Road in the District of Sirohi in the State of Rajasthan and the higher rate of Excise Duty under different classification is sought to be levied at the factory of the petitioner situated at Sirohi, which situates outside the territorial limit of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. On the question of jurisdiction the petitioner has sought to establish that the aforesaid impugned letter was received by the company at its Head Office in Calcutta which situates within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court also the impugned l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mission he has relied on a decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC page 33 and 90 CWN page 438. He contends it will appear from the Calcutta decision that if the impugned letter is served at a place where the petitioner is having place of business, the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court entertain this writ petition. Mr. Ghosh senior Counsel appearing for respondents contends, citing two Supreme Court decisions and also one decision of this Court, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289, 1994(IV) SCC 715, and 1998 Vol. I CLJ 425 respectively, that mere service of the impugned letter upon the petitioner at its Calcutta Office is not the integral part of cause of action. The decision in this matter for reclassification of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whether the receipt of the impugned letter constitute an integral part of cause of action or not. By this time it has been reiterated by all the Courts which I repeat that cause of action means and includes the facts and bundle of facts if traversed by the advisory, the petitioner or plaintiff is required to prove in order to get relief in accordance with law. It is true in this case that the impugned decision for reclassification of the above product was taken in Rajasthan by the respondents. However, taking of decision may be one part but not the whole part of the cause of action simply because the decision is not effective unless it is sought to be enforced or implemented compelling payment. Therefore, until and unless the decision is m....