1998 (11) TMI 656 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary:
The case involved M/S. Technological Institute of Textile Bhiwani situated in Haryana, which filed a refund claim rejected by lower authorities but allowed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Department sought a statement of case to the High Court under Section 35-G, which was rejected. A jurisdictional objection was raised regarding whether the High Court of Delhi or Punjab & Haryana should entertain the petition. The definition of 'High Court' under Section 36 of the Act was crucial in determining jurisdiction.

In a similar context under the Income-tax Act, it was held that the High Court of the state where the matter originated has jurisdiction. Likewise, in a case under the Customs Act, it was established that the High Court of the territory where the case originated holds jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's decision in another case emphasized determining jurisdiction based on the location of the authority from whose order the proceedings originated.

The High Court of Delhi concluded that jurisdiction for a petition under Section 35-G(3) of the Central Excises Act lies with the High Court having jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings originated. Therefore, the petition was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in the High Court of Delhi, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court of Punjab & Haryana for relief.