M/S. AMBICA INDUSTRIES versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 685 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. AMBICA INDUSTRIES 
A 
.., 1 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
MAY 18, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Act, I 944-Section 35G-Territorial jurisdiction of High 
i 
Court in appeal from orders of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate 
Tribunal (CESTAT) having jurisdiction in respect of cases arising within 
territorial limits of more than one State-Held-High Court situated in State c 
where first court is located is to be considered an appropriate appellate 
authori~ode of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not contemplate such a situation 
and Section 35G (9) was inapplicable-Cause of action and dominus litus 
doctrines were inapplicable as they lead to more than one High Court 
having jurisdiction-This was impermissible as not only it could not said to D 
have been contemplated when Parliament thought of one High Court while 
providing for appeal, but also lead to judicial anarchy as decision of High 
Court is binding only on authorities which are within its jurisdiction, and 
is only of persuasive value for other High Courts or Courts or Tribunals 
outside its territorial jurisdiction-It would also give rise to problem of 
forum shopping. 
E 
Appellant carries on business at Lucknow and assessed to Central 
Excise duty there. The matter came up in appeal before Central Excise and 
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CEST AT), New Delhi. This Tribunal exercises 
jurisdiction in respect of cases arising within the territorial limits of the 
States of Uttar Pradesh, National Capital Territory of Delhi and the State of F 
~ 
Maharashtra. Having regard to the situs of the Tribunal, an appeal in terms 
of Section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed before the Delhi 
High Court. It dismissed the appeal holding that it did not have territorial 
jurisdiction in the matter. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that High Court was wrong as it did not consider G 
(i) the effect of Section 35G(9), which made Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 
applicable to appeals under that section; (ii) in terms of Section 100(1) of the 
I 
Code, the order of the First Appellate Court being a decree, a Second Appeal 
lies before the High Court to which it is subordinate. 
685 
H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent contended that to decide the situs of the High Court to which 
an appeal lies under section 35G (i) the determinative factor would be the 
( 
,.... 
situs of the Assessing Officer and not the situs of the Tribunal alone (ii) the 
_, 
term 'cause of action', as applicable in relation to a suit or a writ petition, 
was not relevant. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In terms of Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia as also 
Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the High Court would exercise its 
t-
discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect 
of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial 
, 
c jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen there within but the same 
tests cannot be applied when the appellate court exercises a jurisdiction over 
Tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation, the High Court 
situated in the State where the first court is located should be considered to 
be appropriate appellate authority. (Para 17) (685-C-DJ 
D 
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. S. Sivaramakrishna Iyer AIR, 
(1969) Mad 300, Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 
(1978) 11 DLT 14, Suraj Woolen Mills v. Collector of Customs, (2000) 123 
-r 
ELT 471 (Del), Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Enkay HWS India 
Ltd, (2002) 139 E.L.T. 2land Big Apple Computers v. Commissioner of 
E Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad, (2007) 207 EL T 36, approved. 
1.2. Code of Civil Procedure did not contemplate such a situation. It 
provides for jurisdiction of each court. Even a District Judge must exercise 
its jurisdictio~ only within the territorial limits of a State. It is inconceivable 
under the Code of Civil Procedure that the jurisdiction of the District Court 
F would be exercisable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District, save 
and except in such matters where the law specifically provides therefor. 
r-
(Para 17) (685-D-EJ 
1.3. Sub-section 9 of Section 35G does not answer the question placed 
before the Court. (Para 16J (685-8) 
G 
2.1.'When an appeal is provided 11nder a statute, Parliament must have 
thought of one High Court. It is different m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.