2014 (6) TMI 520 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction of court - Whether High Court of Delhi have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the Revenue - Condonation of delay - Held that - against an earlier order in the case of the respondent-assessee, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court - Court is not inclined to issue notice in the application for condonation of delay as this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It will be open to the appellant to file an appeal before the High Court having jurisdiction - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the situs of the Assessing Officer who passed the Order-in-Original. The case involves an appeal preferred in Delhi without indicating the reason for invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The appellant argued that a Large Taxpayer Unit (LTU) was created in Delhi and examined the impugned order, but the original order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Pondicherry. The court referred to the case of Suresh Desai & Associates v. CIT, emphasizing that the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the initial order. The judgment also cited the case of Suraj Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs, highlighting the principle that the court with jurisdiction is where the office of the Assessing Officer is situated.

Furthermore, the judgment referenced the case of Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing that the decision of a High Court is binding only within its jurisdiction and of persuasive value elsewhere. The court warned against forum shopping and judicial anarchy if decisions of High Courts were not limited to their territorial jurisdiction. The judgment concluded by noting that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to the mismatch between the situs of the Assessing Officer and the chosen appellate forum, directing the appellant to file the appeal before the High Court with appropriate jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted the importance of aligning the appellate forum with the location of the Assessing Officer to prevent anomalies and forum shopping.