9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1203 - AT - Service TaxTerritorial Jurisdiction of tribunal - assessee is situated in Gurgaon - order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon - appeal lies before Delhi bench of tribunal or Chandigarh bench of tribunal - HELD THAT - In Ambica Industries 2007 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT , on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the Appellant, the issue was regarding determination of the High Court before which Appeals would lie under Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant carried business at Lucknow and the matter was ultimately decided by the Tribunal at New Delhi since the Tribunal at New Delhi exercised jurisdiction in respect of cases arising within the territorial limits of Uttar Pradesh, National Territory of Delhi and the States of Maharashtra. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant is situated in Gurgaon and the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries cannot be pressed by the Appellant to contend that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The jurisdiction to hear the appeal would lie with the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The records of the appeal shall, therefore, be sent to the Regional Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Appellate jurisdiction
The judgment revolves around the issue of determining the appropriate jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear an appeal filed before it. The key contention arises from the geographical location of the Appellant and the authority that issued the show cause notice, leading to a debate on whether the Principal Bench at New Delhi or the Regional Bench at Chandigarh should have jurisdiction over the case. Analysis: The appeal was initially filed before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at New Delhi but was later transferred to the Chandigarh Regional Bench by the office of the Principal Bench. This transfer prompted the Appellant to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the decision to move the case. The High Court disposed of the petition, leaving the decision on the jurisdiction of the appeal to be determined on the judicial side. The Appellant argued that since the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax at New Delhi and the Appellant was registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate at Delhi, the Principal Bench at New Delhi should have jurisdiction. This argument was supported by a Supreme Court decision in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2007 (213) ELT 323 (SC)]. However, the Department's representative contended that due to a restructuring, the Appellant fell under the jurisdiction of the Service Tax Commissionerate at Gurgaon, where the order was eventually passed, indicating that the Regional Bench at Chandigarh should have jurisdiction. The Tribunal analyzed the factual background, highlighting that the Appellant's location and the adjudication by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon were crucial factors. Referring to the establishment of the Chandigarh Regional Bench and the jurisdictional changes, it was concluded that the Regional Bench at Chandigarh was the appropriate forum to hear the appeal based on the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Haryana. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Ambica Industries, which emphasized the significance of the situs of the Tribunal in determining jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that the Appellant's location in Gurgaon and the order being passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax at Gurgaon necessitated the appeal to be heard by the Regional Bench at Chandigarh. Consequently, the records of the appeal were directed to be sent to the Regional Bench for further proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerning appeals based on the situs of the Appellant and the authority issuing orders, ultimately determining the appropriate forum for adjudication based on territorial considerations.
|
