2006 (1) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in collusion with the first respondent, while engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs, committed willful act of evasion of duty and the other respondents abetted the same and have contravened the provisions of Sections 68 and 71 of the Customs Act rendering themselves liable for the payment of customs duty of Rs. 1,71,91,550/- The respondents challenged the show cause notice before this Court in W.P. No. 6157 of 2003 and this Court, by order dated 24-9-2003, directed the respondents herein to send a reply to the show cause notice raising all issues. 4.The first respondent herein approached the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench at Chennai by filing an application under Section 127B of the Customs Act and it also filed a Miscellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and it has to be dismissed in limine on that ground. He also relied on a decision of this Court in Paras Corporation v. Union of India, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 409 (Mad.). 7.Mr K. Veeraraghavan, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the entire cause of action arose at Madras and this Court has got jurisdiction and the petitioner cannot be prevented from challenging the impugned order here and relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, [(1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711)] and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r transfer. Thereafter, the first respondent preferred a petition for transfer before the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission at New Delhi and the petitioner herein filed a report stating that the substantial cause of action arose only within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chennai Bench and opposed the transfer. The Principal Bench considered the written and oral submissions of both sides and held that to dispel the apprehension in the minds of the applicants, in the interest of justice and fair play, the request for transfer is acceded to and ordered the transfer of the case from the Additional Bench, Chennai to the Additional Bench, Mumbai for disposal. The petitioner herein has not challenged that order and has allowed it t....