2014 (12) TMI 773 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 would not be maintainable before the Delhi High Court as the order-in-original was passed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay- II. This question is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries versus Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Appeal not maintainable.

Summary

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

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in default, and subsequent applications for restoration and condonation of delay were filed. The High Court noted that the original order was passed by the assessing authority in Mumbai, and the appeal was filed in Delhi due to the location of the appellate tribunal. It was prima facie observed that the Delhi High Court might not have jurisdiction over the matter due to the original order being from Mumbai.

2. Despite multiple orders directing the Revenue to obtain instructions regarding jurisdiction, they failed to do so. The Court reiterated that the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be maintainable in the Delhi High Court as the original order was issued by the Collector of Central Excise in Bombay-II. This position was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Ambica Industries versus Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769.

3. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the applications, allowing the Revenue to file an appeal in the appropriate High Court with jurisdiction if advised to do so. The Court emphasized that the appeal should have been filed before the Bombay High Court due to the nature of the original order, thus highlighting the importance of jurisdictional considerations in such matters.