2022 (8) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Territorial Jurisdiction - proper officer to pass adjudication order - it is pointed out that the adjudication order was passed by Principal Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate General of GST Intelligence New Delhi, the appeal lies before the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal - HELD THAT - The identical issue of jurisdiction came before this tribunal in the case of SAVITHA NISAR VERSUS ADJUDICATION DRI MUMBAI 2021 (12) TMI 1373 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that the impugned order was passed by the ADG (Adjudication),DRI, Mumbai. Accordingly, the appeal lies in the Mumbai bench and this Ahmedabad bench has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as non maintainable. In the present case, similar to the given judgment the impugned order was passed by the Principal Additional Director General (Adjudication) DGGI- Delhi. Therefore, the appeal lies before the Delhi Bench accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as non- maintainable.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the jurisdiction of the tribunal in relation to the location where the impugned order was passed. The appellant argued that since the import of goods took place at Mundra Port, Gujarat, the action arose in Gujarat, giving the Ahmedabad bench jurisdiction. On the contrary, the revenue contended that the cause of action, which in their view means the passing of the adjudication order by the ADG (Adjudication), DRI, Mumbai, places jurisdiction with the Mumbai bench. The tribunal analyzed the submissions and relevant case laws provided by both sides to determine the appropriate jurisdiction.

The tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar jurisdiction issue was raised, and it was held that the correct jurisdiction lies with the bench where the impugned order was passed. In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Principal Additional Director General (Adjudication) DGGI in Delhi. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the appeal should be filed before the Delhi Bench of CESTAT. As a result, the appeals in question were dismissed as non-maintainable, with the appellant being granted the liberty to file the appeals along with COD before the Delhi Bench of CESTAT.

Overall, the tribunal's decision was based on the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the location where the impugned order was passed. The tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant case laws before reaching the conclusion that the appeals should be filed before the Delhi Bench due to the location of the adjudication order.