2016 (11) TMI 790 - HC - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 - Held that - As far as the present appeal is concerned the learned counsel for the Appellant is unable to convince the Court why the Appellant which is located in Bhilai in Chhattisgarh and with the order in adjudication having been passed by the Respondent i.e. the Commissioner Service Tax at Raipur in Chhattisgarh is precluded from filing an appeal before the High Court at Chhattisgarh against the order of the CESTAT. - Consequently the Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. The Appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court to avail the remedy available to it in accordance with law. Appeal not maintainable and is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain appeal against CESTAT order.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Appellant was required to pay a pre-deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs within a specified period failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The appeal was directed against an order of the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the maintainability of the appeal since both parties were located in Chhattisgarh. The Appellant sought time to establish the maintainability. Subsequently, the Court referred to relevant decisions, including one by the Supreme Court in Canon Steels P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and another in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Respondent sought time for further research on the issue.

The Appellant later relied on a decision by a five-Judges Bench of the Court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. The Court noted that the Appellant, being located in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, and the order being passed by the Commissioner Service Tax at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, did not preclude the Appellant from filing the appeal in the High Court at Chhattisgarh against the CESTAT order.

Ultimately, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, allowing the Appellant to approach the appropriate Court for relief as per the law. The appeal and application were disposed of accordingly.