9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. - CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO.205 of 2015, TAX A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainable before this court. 3. Mr. R.J. Oza, Senior Advocate, learned senior standing counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra , inasmuch as, this court has consistently held that when the matter arises from any of the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, in terms of section 36(b) of the Act, it would be the High Court at Bombay which would have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal, notwithstanding the fact that the seat of the Tribunal which delivered the order impugned in the appeal may be at Ahmedabad. In support of such submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon an order dated 4th May, 2015 passed by this court in the case of Riva Packaging Solutions Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax rendered in Civil Application (OJ) No.384/2015, wherein the court accepted the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent therein that as the unit was situated in Silvassa which is a Union Territory, the matter which arose from Dadra and Nagar Haveli could only be heard by the Bombay High Court and that the Gujarat High Court has no territorial jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The showcause notice was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi and the appeal against such order came to be decided by the Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Thus, both, the original as well as the final order which is subject matter of challenge in the appeal, have been passed within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 4.1 Reference was made to the provisions of section 35G of the Central Excise Act to submit that the High Court therein would mean the High Court in relation to any State, the High Court for that State as defined under section 36(b)(i) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the words in relation to in the present case would mean in relation to the order passed by the adjudicating authority which is subject matter in dispute and not the unit of the respondent No.1 at Silvassa since the order in dispute is the order passed by the Commissioner, Vapi and hence, this High Court would be the High Court for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 35G of the Act. Reference was made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Desai and Associates v. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is High Court. 4.2 The learned counsel next submitted that assuming without admitting that it is the Bombay High Court which has the jurisdiction to decide the present appeal, the order/direction issued by the Bombay High Court is not binding on appellate authority or adjudicating authority of a different territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that the Tribunal at Ahmedabad or the adjudicating authority at Vapi is bound to follow the decision or direction issued by the High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed in the present case becomes meaningless if filed before the Bombay High Court as the Tribunal at Ahmedabad or the adjudicating authority at Vapi does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. It was submitted that, therefore, the application being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed, inasmuch as, in the light exposition of law in the above decisions, it is this High Court which would have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and not the Bombay High Court. It was accordingly urged that the Supreme Court in the above decision having held that it is the seat of the original authority which confers jurisdiction upon the High Court, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court for that State and clause (iii) in relation to Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, the High Court at Bombay. Thus, in relation to Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, it is the High Court at Bombay which is the High Court as envisaged under clause (b) of section 36 of the Act. 7. It is the case of the respondent that since the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Vapi has issued the show-cause notice and has adjudicated the same and he being the adjudicating authority is situated at Vapi within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, it is this court which has the jurisdiction to decide the appeal and not the Bombay High Court. In support of such submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the above referred decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bombay Snuff Private Limited v. Union of India (supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) for contending that it is the seat of the adjudicating authority which confers the jurisdiction upon the concerned High Court. 8. It may be significant to note that the Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The dispute/lis in the present case emanates from the irregularities committed within the jurisdiction of the central excise authorities at Silvassa and the matter clearly relates to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. It is only because of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the jurisdictional High Court in relation to matters arising from the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and in relation to such matters, it is the order/direction issued by the Bombay High Court which would be binding. 11. Besides, if the contention of the respondent were to be accepted, the provisions of section 36(b)(iii) of the Act conferring jurisdiction upon the High Court at Bombay to decide appeals in relation to the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu would be rendered more or less nugatory having regard to the fact that in case of matters exceeding a certain pecuniary jurisdiction, the adjudicating authority would be the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi. Another anomalous situation that would arise is that in a case where there are two similar proceedings in relation to the same assessee situated within the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli or Daman and Diu as the case may be, one falling within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner at Silvassa and the other falling within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise at Vapi; against the ultimate orders passed in both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
