By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, JAN 18, 2016: THE assessee is located in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi issued a show-cause notice and adjudicated the same. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the Order-in-Original. The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondent revenue filed an application, raising an objection that the appeal should be filed before the Bombay High Court as per Sec 36(b).

The counsel for revenue submitted that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra, inasmuch as, the 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.

The counsel for the assessee submitted that it is the cause of action for the lis that gives necessary territorial jurisdiction to the High Court and that in the present case, the cause of action for the lis clearly arises within the jurisdiction of Gujarat High Court. In the present case, the entire adjudication proceeding took place in Gujarat and hence, it is the Gujarat High Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ The peculiar situation that arises in the present case is that while all adjudicating authority and all the appellate authorities are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat, the manufacturing unit in relation to which the dispute arose is situated in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and by virtue of the provisions of section 36(b)(iii), it is the High Court at Bombay which is the High Court in relation to such Union Territory.

+ 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 the fact that the amount involved exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the central excise authorities situated at Silvassa, that the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vapi has exercised jurisdiction in the present case. Under the circumstances, 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. This court is not in agreement with the contention advanced by the respondent that the above referred decisions rendered by this court are per incuriam. This court is also of the opinion that no case has been made out for referring the matter to the Larger Bench.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application by the Revenue.

(See 2016-TIOL-101-HC-AHM-CX)