2015 (12) TMI 259 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction of court - Territorial jurisdiction - whether this court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal preferred by the respondent against the order passed by the Tribunal in a case where the assessee whose manufacturing unit from which the dispute arises is situated at Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and where the Order-in-Original had been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi and the appeal against the said order has been decided by the Tribunal at Ahmedabad - Held that - manufacturing unit of the respondent assessee in relation to which the dispute arises, is situated at Silvassa within the jurisdiction of the central excise authorities who are located at Silvassa namely, the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Silvassa and the Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax at Silvassa. For administrative purposes, the Central Excise authorities who are situated at Silvassa have been conferred jurisdiction to decide cases upto a particular pecuniary limit and beyond such limit such jurisdiction has been conferred on the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi. The present case being beyond the pecuniary limits of the authorities situated at Silvassa, it is the Commissioner of Customs, Vapi, who has exercised jurisdiction and issued the show-cause notice and has adjudicated the same. Nonetheless, insofar as the respondent assessee is concerned, it falls within the jurisdiction of the central excise authorities at Silvassa. In the opinion of this court, the mere fact that the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi also exercises jurisdiction over the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli would not mean that the matter ceases to relate to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Since the matter arises in relation to the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar and Haveli, under the provisions of section 35G(1) read with section 36(b)(iii) of the Act, it is the High Court at Bombay which would be the High Court having jurisdiction to entertain and decide an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Applicability of Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944:

The applicant (original respondent) raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court to entertain the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant argued that the appeal should be filed before the High Court at Bombay as defined under Section 36(b) of the Act, given that the respondent's place of business is located in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and the Tribunal that passed the order is situated in Ahmedabad. The applicant cited previous judgments where it was consistently held that matters arising from Dadra and Nagar Haveli should be heard by the Bombay High Court.

The respondent (original appellant) countered this by asserting that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court as the entire adjudication process took place in Gujarat. The respondent argued that the show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi, and the appeal against such order was decided by the Tribunal at Ahmedabad, thus conferring jurisdiction on the Gujarat High Court.

2. Applicability of Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts:

The court examined the provisions of Section 35G and Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 35G provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Section 36(b) defines "High Court" in relation to different territories, specifying that for the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman, and Diu, the High Court at Bombay has jurisdiction.

The court noted that the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise held that the determination of the jurisdiction of a High Court should be based on statutory provisions rather than the cause of action doctrine. The court also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Bombay Snuff Private Limited v. Union of India, which held that the appeal must be filed in the High Court that has jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings originated.

The court concluded that since the manufacturing unit of the respondent assessee is situated in Silvassa within the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and by virtue of Section 36(b)(iii), it is the High Court at Bombay that has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi, exercised jurisdiction does not alter the fact that the matter relates to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

Conclusion:

The court held that it is the High Court at Bombay that has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal, not the Gujarat High Court. The application was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable before the Gujarat High Court. The court emphasized that the statutory provisions clearly specify the jurisdiction, and any contrary view would render Section 36(b)(iii) nugatory. The court also dismissed the contention that the decisions of the Bombay High Court would not bind authorities outside its territorial jurisdiction, affirming that the Bombay High Court is the jurisdictional court for matters arising from the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman, and Diu.

← Previous Next →