9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdictional challenge regarding the classification of non-cellulosic synthetic wastes blended with viscose under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the classification of the petitioners' product under a different item of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Initially, the product was classified under a specific item and cleared upon payment of Excise Duty. The jurisdictional issue arose as the higher rate of Excise Duty was sought to be levied at the factory of the petitioner situated outside the territorial limit of the High Court. The petitioner contended that the impugned letter was served at its Calcutta Office, establishing a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondents, however, argued that the entire cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court as the decision for reclassification was taken in Rajasthan. During the proceedings, the respondents clarified that the product fell under a lower duty classification, resolving the main grievance of the petitioner. The Court analyzed the concept of cause of action, emphasizing that it includes the facts necessary for relief according to law. While the decision for reclassification was taken in Rajasthan, the enforcement and communication of the decision, demanding a higher Excise Duty payment, occurred at the petitioner's Calcutta Office. The Court rejected the argument that the entire cause of action arose in Rajasthan since the decision needed to be communicated and enforced for the petitioner to suffer loss and injury. Citing previous decisions, the Court held that the service of the order or receipt of a notice formed part of the cause of action for filing a writ petition by the aggrieved party. In conclusion, the Court found that a part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction due to the communication and enforcement of the decision at the petitioner's Calcutta Office. With subsequent developments clarifying the duty classification, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the return of the bank guarantee and refunding the payment made by the petitioner. Interest at the rate of 10% per annum was ordered on the refund amount. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
