9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1065 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction - Whether the appeals arising under Section 130 of the Customs Act and Section 35G of the Central Excise Act from the orders of the Tribunal at Mumbai, can be presented and heard before the principal seat of the High Court, even when the impugned order of the Tribunal arises out of places which are allotted to the Benches at Nagpur and Goa? Held that - It cannot be disputed that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act from the orders of the Tribunal at Mumbai. The issue for consideration is only which of the benches (includes the principal bench at Mumbai) would accept and decide a statutory tax appeal - The practice of the Court as enunciated in Chapter XXIV A read with Chapter XXXI Rules 1 to 3 of the Appellate Side Rules provide that appeal under the Customs Act and the Central Excise Act i.e. tax appeals which arise out of districts relating to which of the benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad, Goa and the principal bench have been allotted are to accept the filing of an statutory tax appeal. The presentation of these five appeals in terms of the High Court Rules has to be before the appropriate bench (includes the principal seat at Mumbai) on the basis of the district where the dispute arose. It is a settled position in law that the practice of the Court is the law of the Court. In terms of the Appellate Side Rules, the appeals have to be presented at that bench (including the principal seat) which has been allocated the place where the dispute has arisen and not the place where the appellate authority is situated. The preliminary question is answered in the negative that is in favour of the respondent Revenue and against the appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety regarding the place of filing and hearing appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Interpretation and application of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, particularly Chapter XXXI and Chapter XXIV-A. 3. Consideration of precedent cases and their applicability post-amendment of the Appellate Side Rules. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety: The primary issue addressed was whether appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act and Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, from orders of the Tribunal at Mumbai, should be presented and heard at the principal seat of the High Court in Mumbai or at the respective benches in Nagpur and Goa. The court clarified that there was no dispute regarding the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. The procedural question was about the appropriate venue for filing and hearing these appeals. The respondents contended that the appeals should be transferred to the Nagpur and Goa benches, as the original orders were passed within the districts allotted to these benches under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. 2. Interpretation and Application of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules: The respondents relied on Chapter XXXI, Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Appellate Side Rules, which mandate that appeals from specific districts should be presented to the respective benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Goa. They also referenced the amendment made on October 27, 2014, which introduced Chapter XXIV-A, specifying that tax appeals should be filed based on the district where the dispute arose, not the situs of the Tribunal. The court noted that the earlier decisions in Vinar Ispat Ltd. and Facor Steel Ltd. were rendered before the insertion of Chapter XXIV-A and thus did not consider the new provisions. The amendment clearly restricts the filing of tax appeals to the benches corresponding to the district where the dispute originated. Therefore, the appeals should be transferred to the respective benches at Nagpur and Goa. 3. Consideration of Precedent Cases: The appellants argued that the preliminary issue was already settled in their favor by previous decisions of the court, which allowed them to choose the bench for filing appeals. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sri. Nasiruddin, which held that a litigant could select either of the benches of the court. However, the court distinguished these cases, noting that they dealt with writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and not statutory tax appeals. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ambica Industries, which held that for statutory appeals under the Central Excise Act, the jurisdiction is determined by the place where the dispute arose, not the situs of the Tribunal. This principle was reaffirmed despite the appellants' reliance on the decision in Cannon Steel Pvt. Ltd., which was not directly applicable to the current facts. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appeals should be filed and heard at the benches corresponding to the districts where the disputes originated, as mandated by Chapter XXIV-A and Chapter XXXI of the Appellate Side Rules. Therefore, the appeals in question were ordered to be transferred to the respective benches at Nagpur and Goa. Order: The Registry was directed to transfer: - Customs Appeal Nos. 19 of 2017 and 20 of 2017 to the Goa Bench. - Customs Appeal No. 25 of 2017 to the Nagpur Bench. - Excise Appeal Nos. 28 of 2017 and 105 of 2017 to the Nagpur Bench.
|
