TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) who has passed the impugned order is situate in Delhi, does not, according to the respondents, confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain this appeal and determine the issues arising in the same. The facts giving rise to the controversy may at this stage be summarised as under. 2.The appellant company has set up a factory in Industrial Area, Gondia, Maharashtra, for the manufacture of 'Snuff', which, according to the appellant, falls under Chapter Heading 2404 of the Central Excise Tariff. It appears to have lodged a protest before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nagpur regarding the classification of 'Snuff' as an end-product for purposes of payment of duty und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the Tribunal whose order was under challenge in this appeal was wholly immaterial for purposes of determining the appellate forum before whom the appellant should agitate its grievance. It was urged that an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be filed in the High Court as defined under Section 36(b) of the Act. This Court was not, in the light of the said definition, competent to entertain the appeal in the present case. The High Court exercising jurisdiction over the area in which the petitioner's factory was situate in Maharashtra alone could, according to the learned counsel, entertain an appeal under Section 35G. Reliance in support of that submission was placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a petition under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lay with the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings had originated and not the High Court of Delhi merely because the main seat of CEGAT was situated at Delhi or the appeal was heard and decided at Delhi. The court observed : "The ratio of the decision by their Lordships in the case of Stridewell Leather's (supra) lends support to the view taken by the High Court of Delhi in the cases arising under the Income-tax Act, the Customs Act and the Central Excises Act. We are clearly of the opinion that the jurisdiction to hear the petition under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 lies with the High Court having jurisdict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in our view, lend any assistance to the appellant. The Supreme Court was in that case examining whether the seat of Parliament or the Legislature of a State would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant in the case before the Supreme Court had challenged the vires of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, before this court and the only reason why the petition was according to the appellant maintainable in the High Court at Delhi was that the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act had been assailed in the petition. It was in that background that....