9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 100 - HC - Central ExciseAppeal to High Court - Maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT - In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. The provision of the Central Excise Act and in particular the definition of the term 'High Court' as available in Section 36(b) of the said Act never fell for consideration of the apex court in Kusum Ingots case 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT . It is therefore difficult to hold that the view taken by this court in Technological Institute of Textile's case 1998 (11) TMI 656 - DELHI HIGH COURT stands overruled sub silentio. Since the decision rendered by this court in the said case directly relates to the provisions of the Central Excise Act under which the present appeal has been filed, we have no option but to follow the said decision and hold that this appeal is not maintainable in this court. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents, therefore, succeeds. Consequently, this appeal shall stand returned to the appellant for presentation before the proper court.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a company manufacturing 'Snuff' in Maharashtra, filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Delhi. The respondents contended that the appeal should have been filed before the High Court in Maharashtra where the appellant's factory was located. The key issue was whether the location of the Tribunal or the authority whose order was under challenge determined the appellate forum for such appeals. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that the High Courts within the jurisdiction of the authorities passing the orders could entertain such appeals. However, the respondents cited a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Technological Institute of Textile, emphasizing that the jurisdiction lay with the High Court where the proceedings had originated, not where the Tribunal was situated. The High Court analyzed the legal position and held that the jurisdiction to hear appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act lies with the High Court having jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings originated. The Court noted that the location of the Tribunal or where the appeal was heard did not confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Delhi. The Court distinguished the Kusum Ingots case, stating that it did not apply to the present situation involving the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable in the High Court of Delhi, and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents succeeded, leading to the appeal being returned to the appellant for presentation before the proper court. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the jurisdictional aspect of appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the High Court with jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings originated is the appropriate forum for such appeals. The decision underscored the importance of the origin of proceedings in determining the appellate forum, rather than the location of the Tribunal or where the appeal was heard.
|
